BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 484 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 19.08.2019.
Date of Decision : 02.08.2023.
Ramji Lal, aged about 48 years son of Shri Ganpat Ram son of Shri Taaju, resident of village Keharwala, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch Office at Rania, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. 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).
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (as amended under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019).
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR …………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Preet Amar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Statistical Assistant for opposite party No.3.
ORDER
The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) seeking insurance claim for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017.
2. The complainant has alleged that he is an agricultural having agricultural land measuring 62 kanals 06 marlas (as detailed in para no.1 of the complaint) situated in village Keharwala, District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 2017-2018. The complainant is having his Kisan Credit Card account bearing number 81688853018875 with op no.1 bank and mortgaged his land measuring 61 kanals 6 marlas and obtained crop loan from the bank. It is further averred that said land of complainant is not fit for sowing paddy crop and complainant never sown paddy crop at any point of time and even the complainant has not given any information to the bank or to the ops for sowing paddy crop. That cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 sown by complainant was got insured by op no.1 bank after deducting premium amount from the KCC loan account of complainant as per scheme of the Central Govt. of India namely Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. It is further averred that cotton crop of complainant was damaged due to natural calamities and complainant suffered heavy loss and other villagers have received compensation but complainant was not given any compensation. That now complainant has come to know that ops have wrongly mentioned that in the above said loan paddy crop was sown and due to this reason he has not been given any compensation despite his several visits and requests and the act and conduct of the ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment and mental agony. Hence, this complaint seeking compensation amount of Rs.1,20,000/- at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per acre alongwith compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant has applied to the answering op for providing him financial assistance of Rs.3,50,000/- as KCC limit vide application dated 27.11.2011. He had proposed in his application that he will sow crop of paddy in kharif. If he has changed the crop, then it was his duty to inform the ops. It is further submitted that as complainant has proposed his crop for kharif as paddy accordingly answering op has paid the premium to the insurance company for the insurance of proposed crop. It is further submitted that amounts of premium of Rs.3379.45 and Rs.4631.97 for insurance have been debited from the account of complainant on 31.07.2017 and on 31.07.2018 by answering op and transferred the said amount to op no.2 and insurance company has not raised any objection as per clause 19 (XXII) of Haryana Govt. Notification dated 30.03.2018 and accepted the premium for insurance of crop of complainant. Hence, insurance company is liable to compensate the complainant regarding any loss caused to complainant. If insurance company has not insured the crops of complainant, then it was their duty to refund the amount of insurance premium but they have not refunded the premium and after acceptance of premium the matter of claim etc. is between the insurance company and farmer. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done either by complainant or by bank of complainant. That no intimation ever received regarding the loss of crop from the complainant as well as any other agencies. However, the claim of complainant was rejected as the crop loss occurred due to Rains but the same is not leading to Inundation which is covered for loss under the scheme and complainant has made a false, bogus and baseless story just to grab the compensation. It is further submitted that it is not an individual insurance policy like other insurance policies rather it is a group insurance scheme in accordance with agreed terms and conditions of scheme which are binding on all of concerned related to the scheme. The complainant should have approached to DAC & FW department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and the decision of said department would be binding on all state Government/ Insurance Company/ Banks and farmers but instead of this, complainant has approached this Commission by violating standard terms and conditions of scheme. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Op no.3 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that yield basis claims are settled by the insurance company only on completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme which have already been given by op no.3 within specific time period and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
6. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3.
7. On the other hand, op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 and Ex.R3. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Naveen Kumar, Branch Manager as Ex.R4 and documents Ex.R5 and Ex.R6. Op no.2 did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Sh. Satish Kumar, SA for op no.3 and have gone through the case file.
9. The complainant has claimed insurance claim for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. In this regard, op no.1 bank has taken a specific stand that at the of availing crop loan complainant has declared that he will sow paddy crop in kharif season and therefore, the premium amount was deducted for insuring his paddy crop of kharif, 2017 which was paid to op no.2 insurance company. The op no.1 bank has also placed on file a document showing that premium amount of Rs.3379.45 was paid to op no.2 insurance company on 31.07.2017 vide UTR No. PUNBR52017080427141183. It is further plea of op no.1 bank that if complainant has changed the crop then it was his duty to inform the ops. In this regard, op no.1 bank has also placed on file application form for agricultural credit Ex.R5 vide which complainant for getting crop loan from op no.1 bank declared that he will sow paddy crop in kharif season and as such at the viability of paddy crop loan amount was sanctioned and paid to him. The complainant has not placed on file anything to prove the fact that complainant has not availed crop loan for paddy crop or that he has ever informed about change of pattern of crop. So now when complainant has availed loan for paddy crop and has not informed about change of crop from paddy to cotton crop, now he is barred from taking the plea that land of complainant is not fit for sowing paddy crop. The op no.1 bank in its certificate Ex.C2 has clearly mentioned that premium amount of Rs.3379.45 was deducted for insurance of paddy crop of complainant. So, the complainant is not entitled to claim amount for the damage of his cotton crop which was not insured with op no.2 and op no.1 bank also cannot be said at any fault in this regard. As such complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct.
10. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member President,
Dated: 02.08.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
