BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 218 of 2019
Date of Institution : 01.05.2019.
Date of Decision : 25.05.2022.
Chander Kalan aged 39 years wife of Shri Jitender Pal, resident of village and post office Modi, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. State Bank of Patiala, Branch at Chautala Road, Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 4th Floor, Plot No.149, Industrial Area, Next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh- 160002 with which the crop of the applicant was insured (Empenelled Private Insurance Company under the Scheme)
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR …………PRESIDENT MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………MEMBER.
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA………… MEMBER
Present: Sh. Vinod Kamboj, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, 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 complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amended as under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (herein after referred as OPs) on the averments that complainant is agriculturist having her share in land comprised in Square No. 64, Killa no.13, 14/2, 17, 18 Sq. No.115 Killa No.13 vide khewat no.9 khatuni no.9 and khewat no.24 khatuni no.24 situated in village Munnawali and village Modi, Tehsil and District Sirsa. The complainant is having kisan credit card account bearing no.65185584693 with op no.1 and had availed crop loan facility from op no.1 and mortgaged her land with the bank vide rapat no.4037 dated 24.12.2013. It is further averred that as complainant has availed crop loan from op no.1, therefore, as per scheme of the Central Govt. of India namely Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, the op no.1 bank used to get insured the crop of complainant after deducting requisite premium amounts from the account of complainant to secure the loan amount and to provide financial support to the farmers in the event of failure of any of notified crop as a result of natural calamities and diseases.
2. It is further averred that whole of Narma crop of Kharif, 2017 sown by complainant was damaged due to attack of rainy flood/ natural calamities and complainant suffered huge loss. The complainant and her family is fully dependent upon agricultural income. The complainant has spent a sum of Rs.18,000/- per acre on sowing of crop. The complainant approached the ops several times and requested them to get indemnified the loss to the complainant but to no effect. The ops have denied the genuine claim of complainant by simply shifting the liability on each other and the complainant is legally entitled for compensation for the damage of her crop at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre. That ops have caused deficiency in service towards the complainant and due to act and conduct of ops, complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment and mental tension. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops were served. Op no.1 filed reply submitting therein that as per Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna, the bank has debited the amount of premium from the account of complainant has credited the same to the account of op no.1. All the information required by op no.2 was sent to the insurance company as per rules, but the same could not be uploaded on the portal of insurance company for want of aadhar card in the account of complainant. The answering op bank had advertised several times with the appeal to the farmers to submit their aadhar cards in their accounts. It is further submitted that after debit of amount of premium in the account of complainant, she alongwith office bearer of Kisan Union visited the bank premises and shown their grievances regarding transfer of amount for insurance of crops as they had not authorized the bank to get her crop insured. They were advised to deposit the aadhar card with the bank as insurance was necessary as per instructions from Govt. of India, but they refused to get the crop insured. As such complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct to file the present complaint. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections regarding no coverage of alleged loss, insurance company cannot be question for proposal related disputes, not maintainable for want of jurisdiction, non intimation, 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. On merits, it is submitted that every farmer who wants to get the benefits of KCC, he/ she should get compulsorily insurance under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Suraksha Bima Yojna. That no intimation was ever received regarding the loss of crop from complainant as well as from any other agencies. However, the 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. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Op no.3 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections as taken by op no.2. It is submitted that the role of the op no.3 is only to conduct survey of the loss. The yield basis claims are settled by insurance company only after completion of other necessary formalities as prescribed in operational guidelines of scheme, which have already been given by answering op within specific time period as prescribed in the operational guidelines of the Government of India and same has already been sent to the ops as well as to the higher authorities. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
6. Complainant has tendered her affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Smt. Parmeshwari Devi as Ex.CW2/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12.
7. OP no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa as Ex.R1, copy of Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department notification dated 13.06.2017 Ex.R2 and copy of village wise tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim under PMFBY during Kharif, 2017 Ex.R3. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Ranjeet Singh, Chief Manager as Ex.R4. Op no.2 did not lead any evidence.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
9. The record reveals that complainant in order to prove her case has furnished her affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. The complainant has also placed on file copy of statement of account Ex.C4, the perusal of which reveals that on 29.7.2017, premium amount of Rs.1933.12 was deducted by op no.1 bank for insuring the Kharif crop of 2017 of complainant and same also reveals that on 10.8.2017 i.e. just within twelve days, the premium amount of Rs.1933.10 deducted by op no.1 bank on 29.7.2017 from the account of complainant was remitted back in her account. The op no.1 bank has taken specific stand that after debit of amount of premium from her account, complainant alongwith office bearer of Kisan Union visited the bank premises and showed grievance regarding transfer of amount as they had not authorized the bank to get her crop insured. The op no.1 has further asserted that they were advised to deposit the aadhar card with the bank but they refused to get the crop insured. There is substance in the contention of op no.1 bank as op no.1 bank in order to get insured the cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 debited premium amount of Rs.1912.33 from her account on 29.7.2017 for paying the same to insurance company op no.2 but when complainant raised protest against deduction of premium amount from her account, at her behest the amount of premium was again credited in her account on 10.8.2017. So, when the crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 has not been insured, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation for alleged damage to her crop and as such now complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by her own act and conduct. Therefore, complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal.
10. In view of our above discussion, there is no 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 free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 25.05.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
