BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 357 of 2019
Date of Institution : 11.07.2019.
Date of Decision : 04.03.2020.
Devi Lal, aged about 50 years son of Shri Ram Lal, resident of village Sadewala, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. State Bank of India, Branch at Rania, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., ABW Towers, Unit No. 511-512, 5th Floor, M.G. Road, Iffco Chowk, Gurugram- 122001 through its Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. K.R. Taak, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The case of complainant, in brief, is that complainant is an agriculturist and is having about 15 Kanals 9 Marlas land comprised in Khewat No. 369 Khatuni No. 556 Sq. No.50 Killa No. 12 (8-0), 19/1 (7-9) vide jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 situated at village Sadewala, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa. That complainant has availed KCC facility from op no.1 on his above said agriculture land vide account No. 33088048968 since 15.7.2013. It is further averred that Government of India had launched a crop insurance scheme namely Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna for the agriculturists and as per insurance scheme, a collaboration between the banks and insurance companies was done to insure the crops of farmers who have availed KCC limit from the bank. That for insurance of crop of kharif, 2017, a sum of Rs.825/- was deducted by op no.1 from the above said account of complainant on 25.7.2017 and op no.1 had got insured the crop from op no.2 under the collaboration scheme for any kind of damage to the crop of complainant. That complainant sown cotton crop in kharif, 2017 and was relaxed qua the insurance of the same with op no.2 for which amount of insurance premium deducted by op no.1 was transferred to op no.2 by op no.1. It is further averred that op no.1 did not provide copy of insurance policy to complainant despite his request and op no.1 stated that it might take sometime and that otherwise also entry in the passbook/ statement of account regarding deduction of premium is a proof in the hands of account holder and as such complainant did not bother about the insurance policy papers in his name. That crop of kharif, 2017 in the village of complainant was destroyed/ damaged on account of natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught and similarly crops of complainant has also been damaged and as such complainant is entitled to get compensation on account of damages caused to his crops to the tune of Rs.50,000/- per acre. That complainant approached the ops and requested for the claim of damages to his crops but on all the occasions the ops asked the complainant to wait stating that process of claims take some time to accomplish. Meanwhile, op no.1 has again deducted premium in the month of December, 2017 for insurance of rabi crop of 2017-2018. That even after passing of more than one and half years, the complainant did not get claim for damages of crop of kharif, 2017 whereas some villagers have already got compensation within a year. The complainant contacted the ops in this regard but in vain. That it appears that both the ops in collusion with each other have deliberately done so for causing loss to the complainant with a malafide intention which amounts to gross negligence of service on the part of ops. That complainant again approached the ops and requested them to compensate him but the ops about a week ago flatly refused to admit the genuine claim of complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Opposite party no.1 filed reply submitting therein that as per the term of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY scheme), which was launched by Hon’ble Prime Minister of India on 13.2.2016, for the farmers who have sought crop loan by any Financial Institutions, it was mandatory for the Banks to insure all the borrowers under the scheme. The premium of the insurance was to be deducted from the account and was to be paid to op no.2 insurance company by the bank. In the present case, the bank has debited the amount of Rs.825/- from the account of complainant and has credited the same to the account of op no.2 as premium of insurance. All the information required by op no.2 which was given by complainant was sent to the insurance company as per rules. The op no.2 has never informed the complainant or the bank regarding any discrepancy in the record or information sent by the bank. Till date, the answering op has no knowledge that on what ground, the claim has been rejected by the company. It is further submitted that crop of kharif, 2017 had been insured by op no.2 and they were liable to send all information and terms of the policy to the complainant and to confirm the information sent to them by answering op. Remaining contents of complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Op no.2 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per complaint, loss of cotton crop has been effected in village Sadewala, Tehsil and District Sirsa due to the reason mentioned in the loss assess report “Rains not lead to Inundation” which has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As such complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground given in the loss assess report alone. It is further submitted that insurance company cannot be questioned for proposal related disputes. The role of insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with scheme of “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” and thus, insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done either by complainant himself or by bank of complainant. In the present complaint, complainant is claiming for cotton crop, but alleged loss to the crop was not covered under the reason “Inundation and Hailstorm”. It is further clarified that insurance of farmer has been done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by bank of farmers. If any mistake is done by bank of complainant, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim amount. It is further submitted that it is clarified that except localized claims, all other perils were to be finalized by government agencies on the basis of yield of crop and thereafter, claims were to be paid to bank of farmers. The insurance company is playing a role of implementing agency in the scheme in accordance with guidelines prescribed by Government. Further more, in localized claims, three perils are covered under the scheme i.e. Hailstorm, Landslide and Inundation affecting isolated farms in the notified area. For localized claims, there was a condition for immediate intimation of claim within 48 hours of loss. After intimation of claim, necessary survey of affected area had to be conducted by surveyor for decision of claim of farmers. 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/ Bank and farmers. But instead of filing complaint or grievance before DAC & FW department, the complainant has approached this Forum by violating standard terms and conditions of scheme and thus, present complaint cannot be adjudicated before this Forum. It is further submitted that complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of crop and thus, connected story of claim of complainant cannot be believed in absence of credible evidence of loss of crop and proof of timely intimation of claim. Merely allegation of claim intimation is not enough to establish that loss had actually occurred. Further, in absence of immediate intimation of claim, survey of damage field could not be conducted and therefore, it is almost impossible to determine quantification of loss. As per guidelines of scheme, immediate intimation was to be given within 48 hours but complainant has failed to give any claim intimation to company for loss of crop which reveals violation of terms and conditions of scheme. Other preliminary objections regarding non submission of proof of loss or weather report, limited coverage as per scheme, yield basis claims are decided by Government, no survey no quantification of loss, no privity of contract, non impleading of necessary parties and involvement of complicated facts and law are involved are also taken. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and above said pleas are also reiterated. It is submitted that claim of complainant was rejected as the crop loss was 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. With these averments, prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also furnished copy of pass book with copy of statement of account Ex.C1, copy of jamabandi for year 2016-2017 Ex.C2, copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C3, copy of pass book Ex.C4, copy of jamabandi Ex.C5 and copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C6. On the other hand, opposite party no.1 has furnished affidavit of Smt. Shalini Mittal, Chief Manager as Ex.R1. OP no.2 did not lead any evidence.
7. As per allegations of complainant, he had sown crop of cotton in his agricultural land in kharif, 2017 and same was got insured from op no.2 through op no.1 which deducted amount of Rs.825/- as insurance premium from KCC account of complainant which is evident from copy of statement of account Ex.C1. The complainant has also tendered copy of jamabandi Ex.C2 to prove his ownership and has also tendered copy of khasra girdawari Ex.C3 to prove the fact of sowing of cotton crop. The complainant himself has placed on file copy of pass book Ex.C1 from which it is evident that on 25.7.2017 the amount of Rs.825/- was debited in the account of complainant as insurance premium for insurance of paddy crop. From copy of statement of account also it is evident that amount of Rs.825/- was debited as premium for insurance of paddy crop meaning thereby that cotton crop of complainant was not got insured by op no.1 from op no.2. The complainant has not placed on record any document from which it could be presumed that complainant ever informed to op bank that he will sow cotton crop in kharif, 2017. He has also not placed on record any document/ letter written to op bank regarding change of crop. The op bank had deducted the premium from the account of complainant and got paddy crop insured for kharif, 2017 and never got insured the cotton crop from the insurance company as claimed by complainant. The complainant has not placed on record any document or letter of intimation vide which he had informed op no.1 regarding change of crop from paddy to cotton. Since cotton crop of complainant was not got insured by complainant nor any intimation qua change of pattern of crop was ever given by complainant to op bank, so it appears that complainant is not entitled for loss of cotton crop which was not duly insured with insurance company and for which premium was not deducted by op bank.
8. In view of above discussion, it appears that complainant has failed to prove his allegations in the complaint by leading cogent and convincing evidence. As such, 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 in open Forum. President,
Dated:04.03.2020. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
