BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint No.306 of 2018
Date of Institution : 11.12.2018
Date of Decision : 11.06.2019
1.Ram Murti 2.Om Parkash 3.Subhash Chander sons of Shri Ami Chand alias Amin Lal son of Shri Ganesha 4.Vinod Kumar son of Shri Om Parkash son of Shri Amin Lal residents of village Burj Bhangu, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
- Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch Office at Neza Dela Khurd, District Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited 4th Floor, Plot No.149, Industrial Area, next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh-150002 with which the crop of the applicant was insured (empanelled private insurance company under the scheme).
- Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL …… MEMBER
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR…………..MEMBER
Present: Sh. H.S.Bishnoi, Advocate for the complainants.
Sh. S.L.Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
OP No.2 exparte.
Sh.Satvir Singh, ASO for OP No.3.
ORDER
The complainants have filed an application under Section 12 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act seeking permission to file joint complaint which was allowed and permission to file joint complaint was granted.
2. The case of the complainants, in brief, is that they are agriculturist by profession and are owners in possession of land measuring 265 kanalas 17 marla situated in village Sawaipur Tehsil & District Sirsa. The complainants are having kisan credit accounts with Op No.1. As per Government Notification, the complainants got insured crop of Rabi/kharif 2017 and Op No.1 deducted the premium under the said scheme. That the whole cotton crop/Kharif sown by the complainants in their land has been destroyed/damaged due to attack of rainy flood and the complainants suffered heavy loss. The complainants approached the bank and lodged the claim but it had asked to approach the Op no.3 being local monitoring committee. Thereafter, the complainants visited Op No.3 and requested to survey and assess the loss and to make compensation but to no avail. The Ops have denied the genuine claim of the insurance by simply shifting the liability on each other despite the fact that the complainants are legally entitled for the claim on account of damage of their crop. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties No.1 & 3 appeared and filed their separate replies. Op No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections that the complainants have no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainants are estopped from filing the present complaint from their own act and conduct and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. It has been submitted that case of the complainants are different as if they have cultivated the cotton crop, then they have violated the terms and conditions of the policy. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the replying Op. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
Op No.3 in its reply has submitted that the replying Op is a branch office of Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, Haryana and the present complaint is not maintainable because the complainants have approached this Forum with bad intention. The complainants have to approach DAC & FW department, for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and the decision of the said departments would be binding of all state government/insurance company/banks and farmers. The present complaint is without any logic and the complainants have never supplied any documents to prove their case. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. Summons sent to the Op No.2 through registered post but after lapsing of mandatory period none had turned upon on behalf of Op No.2, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.03.2019.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainants in order prove their case have tendered affidavit of Ram Murti Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Om Parkash Ex.CW2/A, affidavit of Subhash Chander Ex.CW3/A and affidavit of Vinod Kumar, in which they have deposed in consonance with the averments made in the complaint. They have also tendered documents such as khasra girwari Ex.C1, jamabandi Ex.C2, village wise tabulation sheet Ex.C3, pass book of complainant No.1 Ex.C4, aadhar card of Ram Murti Ex.C5, pass book of Om Parkash Ex.C6, aadhar card of Om Parkash Ex.C7, pass book of Subhash Chander Ex.C8, aadhar card of Subhash Chander Ex.C9, pass book of Vinod Ex.C10, aadhar card of Vinod Ex.C11 and copy of postal receipts Ex.C12 to Ex.C14. On the other hand, the Op No.3 has tendered affidavit of Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Ex.R1 in which he has reiterated the version as mentioned in the reply and also placed document such as notification dated 13.06.2017 Ex.R2, village wise tabulation sheet Ex.R3 whereas Op No.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Parmod Kumar Jain, Branch Manager Ex.R4 in which he has deposed in terms of the pleas taken in the reply and also tendered document such as interview cum assessment form Ex.R5, Ex.R7, Ex.R9, Ex.R11and account ledger inquiry of the complainants Ex.R6, Ex.R8, Ex.10 and Ex.R12
7. The complainants No.1 to 4 have filed the present complaint with the averments that they are agriculturist and they have KCC accounts with the Op No.1 as detailed in para No.4 of the complaint. It is further averred that they got their cotton crop Khariff 2017 insured with the Op No.2 through Op No.1, who deducted the premium for the same from their KCC account and they have sown cotton crop, which was damaged and as a result of which, the claim was lodged, but however, the same was not paid. On the other hand, there is specific plea of the Op No.1 that the complainants had sown the crop of paddy as per declaration filed by them which was insured with the Op No.2 on payment of payment as the same was deducted from their KCC accounts. It is further averred that the complainants never got their cotton crop insured through Op no.1 with Op No.2, therefore, they are not entitle for any compensation and the Op No.1 is not liable to pay any amount. Whereas, there is specific plea of OP No.3 that they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants on account of damage or loss of crop as they are only loss assessing authority and they have nothing to do with the insurance of the crop. They have assessed the loss of crop and in support thereof they have also submitted the required documents.
8. Perusal of the affidavits of complainants namely Ram Murti, Om Parkash, Subhash Chander and Vinod Kumar reveal that they have sown the crop of cotton by making premium to the Op No.2 through Op No.1, but however, they have not deposed in their affidavits that they have sown the crop of paddy as alleged by Op No.1. The perusal of the complaint reveals that the complainants have not specified the killa number in which they have sown the crop of cotton. It was legal obligation of the complainants to prove that they had sown the crop of cotton in their fields and the same was got insured with the Op No.2 through Op No.1/bank. The complainants in their evidence have tendered the copy of jambandi Ex.C2, which does not reflect the crop of cotton in the column of possession. Similarly, the complainants have tendered the copy of khasra girdawari, which does not reflect the specific killa numbers of the complainants and crop sown by the complainants in specific killa numbers. The complainants have not placed on record any other document from which it could be presumed that during the khariff 2017, the complainants had sown the crop of cotton in their fields and the same was got insured with Op No.2 through Op No.1. Rather the Op No.1 has placed on record the copies of declaration filed by the complainants qua the sowing the crop of paddy in khariff 2017. So, it appears from the evidence of the parties that the complainants did get the crop of paddy insured with Op No.2 through Op No.1for which they had filed declaration before Op No.1 and further it is proved fact on record that the crop of cotton which was never got insured by the complainants from the Op No.1 through Op No.2. Hence, they do not deserves to be entitled for any compensation on account of damage of cotton crop.
9. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum. President,
Dated:11.06.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
