BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 570 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 24.09.2019.
Date of Decision : 25.09.2023.
Kulwant Kaur aged 48 years, wife of Shri Jagmohan Singh, resident of village Natar (Sirsa), Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Union Bank of India, Branch office at City Thana Road, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, ICICI Lombard House, 114, Veer Sawarkar Marg, near Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400025, through its authorized signatory/ Incharge.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR……………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA……………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. R.S. Pandhu, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. R.K. Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant is a small farmer having agricultural land measuring 12 kanals 14 marlas in Khewat No. 437/512, 247/300 situated in village Natar, Tehsil and District Sirsa and she and her family members are wholly dependent upon agriculture income and have no other source of income. That complainant is maintaining and operating her account bearing no. 359205030581228 with op no.1. It is further averred that as per Pardhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojna, an amount of Rs.580.26 was deducted from above said account of complainant by op no.1 bank as premium amount for insurance of wheat crop of rabi 2017 with op no.2 as disclosed by op no.1 bank and in this way, the wheat crop in the land of complainant was insured against all types of damages under the above said scheme. That wheat crop of 2017 was totally damaged due to heavily hale stone in the area of complainant, therefore, complainant is entitled to the compensation as per above said policy as several other farmers have been paid amount of insurance claim by op no.2 but payment of insurance amount has not been made to complainant. It is further averred that complainant contacted the op no.1 and enquired about the above said fact upon which op no.1 stated that op no.2 has not accepted her premium but they were not able to explain the reason why the premium was not deposited with op no.2. That when she inquired the matter from the officials of op no.2, she came to know that op no.1 has not deposited the insurance premium in time with op no.2. It is further averred that due to negligence on the part of ops, complainant has suffered economical loss, harassment and mental agony. That complainant approached the ops and requested them to pay the insurance claim but every time she was informed that they are not liable to pay the insurance claim of wheat crop of rabi 2017 as same was not insured. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. On merits, it is submitted that amount of crop insurance premium amounting to Rs.580.26 was deducted from the account of complainant on 30.12.2017 as per instructions and scheme of the Govt. and same was updated on PMFBY Rabi 2017 Govt. portal vide application No. 1052761008, Farmer ID 33927776. The above said amount of insurance premium was remitted to op no.2 by answering op. It is further submitted that complainant at no point of time had given any intimation or information about the damages to her crop. However, answering op did not receive the amount of compensation from op no.2 in the account of complainant. The insurance claim is to be settled by op no.2 and answering op has nothing to do with the same. 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 also filed written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding no coverage of alleged loss, that insurance of farmer has been done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by bank of farmers and if any mistake is done by bank of complainant, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim amount and therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. Other preliminary objections regarding non maintainability 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 are also taken. On merits, it is submitted that no intimation ever received regarding the loss of crop from the complainant as well as from 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. 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. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered her affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Sh. Jagtar Singh son of Sh. Balwant Singh Ex.C2 and copies of documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C10.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Pankaj Bansal, Branch Manager as Ex.R1 and statement of account Ex.R2.
7. Op no.2 did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
9. At the very outset it is pertinent to mention here that although complainant in her complaint has sought insurance claim for the damage of her wheat crop of Rabi, 2017, but however, on 31.05.2023 when the case was fixed for remaining arguments, an application was moved on behalf of complainant seeking amendment/ rectification of the clerical mistake regarding name of crop and amount of premium with the averments that name of crop as wheat and season as rabi was wrongly typed instead of paddy crop of kharif, 2017 and also the premium amount of Rs.580.26 was also wrongly typed and actually premium amount of Rs.660/- was deducted. The said application has been resisted by op no.1 bank on the ground that application has been filed at a very later stage and nature of the case shall be changed.
10. Arguments on the application as well as on main complaint were heard. The complainant filed the present complaint on 24.09.2019 seeking insurance claim for the damage of her wheat crop of Rabi, 2017 but however, filed the said application on 31.05.2013 i.e. after period of more than four years for amendment/ rectification of above said mistake of crop name and amount of premium at a very later stage when the part arguments on the main complaint have already been heard. Moreover, in case the said application is allowed same will not serve the purpose because complainant was also required to prove sowing of paddy crop in kharif season and also to prove the damage to her paddy crop of kharif season of 2017. But however, the complainant has not placed on file any khasra girdawari to prove the fact that she had actually sown paddy crop in kharif season 2017. Although complainant has placed on file letter/ report of the Deputy Director of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare department, Sirsa as Ex.C10, in which it is only reported that the average yield of paddy crop of kharif, 2017 was 963.48 Kgs. per hectare, but however, in order to prove the loss of crop as per operational guidelines of PMFBY, the average yield of crop should be less than threshold yield of block of the village in which loss has been alleged and in absence of any report regarding threshold yield, it cannot be said that said yield of 963.48 Kgs. per hectare was less or there was any damage to the paddy crop in village Natar in Kharif, 2017. Thus, the complainant has failed to prove on record sowing of paddy crop in kharif season of 2017 and also loss to her paddy crop of kharif, 2017 through any cogent and convincing evidence. Though complainant has placed on file affidavit of one Jagtar Singh neighbourer of the field of complainant as Ex.C2 in which he has stated that he has received insurance claim amount for the damage of his crop of 2016-2017 but he has not mentioned in his affidavit that for what crop he has been paid insurance claim. He has not stated that he has received insurance claim for the damage of his paddy crop of kharif, 2017. So, this affidavit only is not sufficient to prove any damage to the paddy crop of complainant and in absence of any report regarding threshold yield of block of village Natar, it cannot be said that there was loss to the paddy crop of kharif, 2017 of complainant. So, for the reasons stated above the application which has been filed at a very later stage deserves dismissal as even if same is allowed it will not serve the purpose. The judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Sau. Shailaja & anr. versus Pearless Finance Corporation 1997 NCJ 328 relied upon by learned counsel for complainant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The complaint of the complainant even on merits also deserve dismissal for the reasons stated above.
11. In view of our above discussion, the application for rectification as well as complaint on merit are 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: 25.09.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
