BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 02 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 02.01.2019.
Date of Decision : 16.09.2022.
Harbhajan Lal son of Shri Jinda Ram, resident of village Bajekan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. The Manager, HDFC Bank Limited SRB Building, Janta Bhawan Road, 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 complainant 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
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Yogesh Modi, 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 agriculturist having his agricultural land (as detailed in para no. 2 of the complaint) in village Bajekan, District Sirsa and has availed crop loan facility from op no.1 over his agricultural land vide account no. 50200023412359. The op no.1 bank as per scheme of the Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna, got insured the cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 of complainant with insurance company by paying requisite premium amount from the above said account of complainant. The complainant sown the cotton crop after spending huge amount. That whole cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 was damaged due to rain, flood and natural calamity. The complainant approached to the ops for getting insurance claim for the damage of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 but none of the ops paid any heed to the genuine requests of complainant and have caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant has proposed in his loan application that he will sow the crop of paddy as Kharif crop. He has availed financial assistance in the shape of CC limit as per paddy crop. The op bank has provided financial assistance to him on the viability of paddy crop. Hence, as per the instruction of complainant, the op no.1 has deducted the amount from the account of complainant for the payment of insurance premium under PMFBY and paid the same to op no.2 for insurance of paddy crop of complainant. It is further submitted that if complainant has changed his crop, then it was his duty to inform the op bank, so that op could have got insured his crop of cotton but he has never informed to op bank. The insurance premium has been deducted from the account of complainant and paid to op no.2 for insurance of kharif crop of complainant i.e. paddy crop. It was the duty of op no.2 to visit the spot and insure the crop. If crop of paddy was not available on the spot, then it was duty of op no.2 to refund the premium of insurance. If op no.2 has accepted the same then it will be presumed that crop of complainant has been insured, hence op no.2 is liable for any loss to the complainant. It is further submitted that bank is not bound to insure the crops of complainant. As per agreement between the bank and complainant, it is the duty of complainant to get insured his crop for which he has availed financial assistance from the bank. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. On being impleaded and on notice, op no.2 appeared and filed its written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding no coverage of alleged loss, insurance company cannot be questioned 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 etc. It is also submitted that in the present complaint, the complainant is claiming for cotton crop but the 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 and therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. On merits, it is submitted that no intimation ever received regarding the loss of crop from the complainant as well as any other agencies and version of complainant that he approached to the officers of op no.1 is false one. However, the claim of complainant was rejected as the crop loss occurred due to Rains but 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 also 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 filing complaint or grievance before DAC & FW department, the complainant has approached this Forum with bad intention by violating standard terms and conditions of scheme and thus, present complaint cannot be adjudicated before this Forum in absence of filing of complaint before appropriate agency by the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Op no.3 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections as taken by op no.2. It is submitted that op no.3 is only liable to conduct crop cutting experience and to make report according to the CCE’s as per operational guidelines issued by the Government of India under PMFBY. The 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. Remaining contents of complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
6. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copies of documents i.e. statements of account Ex.C1, Ex.C2, postal receipt Ex.C3, legal notice Ex.C4, khasra girdawari Ex.C5 and certificate/ document regarding detail of insurance given by bank Ex.C6.
7. On the other hand, op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Babu Lal, Deputy Director of Agriculture Ex.R1, Haryana Government notification dated 13.06.2017 Ex.R2, village wise tabulation sheet of sum insured and claim Ex.R3. OP no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager & Principal Officer as Ex.R4, copy of application for retail agriculture loan Ex.R5, copy of statement of account Ex.R6.
8. Op no.2 did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as Sh. Satish Kumar Singh, SA on behalf of op no.3 and have perused the case file carefully.
10. The complainant has claimed insurance claim amount for the damage of his insured crop of Kharif, 2017. According to complainant as he had sown cotton crop in his agricultural land which was duly got insured by op no.1 bank with insurance company by paying requisite premium amount and as insured crop was damaged, therefore, he is entitled to insurance claim for the damage of his cotton crop. However, in the application for retrial agriculture loan Ex.R5 submitted by him for availing KCC limit from op no.1, the complainant proposed that he will sow paddy crop in Kharif and accordingly KCC limit was granted to him by the bank. Thereafter, if complainant has changed the crop of cotton from paddy crop, then he should have informed the op no.1 bank so that his cotton crop could be insured. Since cotton crop of complainant was not got insured by op no.1 bank nor any intimation qua change of pattern of crop was ever given by complainant to op no.1 bank, 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. Since the loan amount was taken by complainant for paddy crop and no intimation regarding change of crop by him has been given to the op no.1 bank, therefore, complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct.
11. In view of 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 Member President,
Dated: 16.09.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
