BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 394 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 23.07.2019.
Date of Decision : 29.03.2024.
Sajjan Kumar (aged about 35 years) son of Sh. Rameshwar, resident of village Kusumbhi, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Bank of India, Branch Begu Road Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. Bank of India, Corporate Office, Star House C-5, G-Block, Bandra, Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai through its authorized person.
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. ABW Towers, Unit No. 511-512, 5th Floor, M.G. Road, Iffco Chowk, Gurugram- 122001 through M.D/ authorized person.
...…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. Mukesh Poonia, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.K. Gupta, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 and 2.
Sh. R. K. Mehta, Advocate 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. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is an agriculturist and is owner in possession of land measuring about four acres to the extent of his share out of total land measuring 146 kanals 07 marlas situated in village Jodhkan, Tehsil and District Sirsa. He has also availed KCC facility from op no.1 vide his account bearing No.676532110000269. The complainant used to sow the cotton crop in his agriculture land and during the Kharif season of 2017 he had sown cotton crop in his land which is also mentioned in Girdawari. It is further averred that as per crop insurance scheme of Government and willingness of complainant on 31.07.2017 op no.1 had deducted a sum of Rs.1628.29 from the above account of complainant as premium for insurance of his crop of Kharif, 2017. That father of complainant has also sown Narma crop in his fields and got insured Narma crop from op no.1 and has received compensation. That cotton (Narma) crop of complainant in Kharif, 2017 was damaged upon which he approached op no.1 and requested to indemnify his claim but the bank authorities kept on avoiding the request of complainant on one false pretext or the other despite several requests and ultimately they have flatly refused to indemnify his claim by saying that he is not entitled to the compensation as premium amount has been deducted for insurance of his paddy crop whereas he had never sown paddy crop in his fields since for the last several years and as such there is gross deficiency in service on the part of bank due to which he has not received any compensation from any of ops and as such ops have caused unnecessary harassment, mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the ops to pay compensation/ insured amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of damages to his crop and also to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and Rs.50,000/- as penalty on account of deficiency in service and also to pay litigation expenses.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Ops no.1 and 2 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that it is incorrect that complainant used to sow the crop of narma in his agriculture land. As per the declaration/ proposal form submitted to the bank, the complainant has disclosed that he had been sowing paddy crop during the kharif season in four acres of agriculture land and wheat crop during the rabi crop. The aforesaid declaration was made by complainant himself which is duly signed by him. It is further submitted that as per the record of the bank an amount of Rs.1628.29 was debited to the account of complainant on 31.07.2017 on account of insurance premium of PMFBY which was duly remitted to ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. as per insurer appointed by Govt. of India and the complainant ought to have approached the insurance company in this behalf but said insurance company has not been impleaded as party. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact complainant is not entitled to any claim as the complainant has paid the premium in respect of the paddy crop whereas he is claiming for the loss of the Narma. It is further submitted that it is incorrect that bank authorities had been negligent in any way. The declaration has to be made by complainant which is forwarded to the insurance company as it is. If the complainant has furnished false particulars regarding the crop, there is no deficiency on the part of answering ops. The answering ops for the purpose of declaring the crops are not required to verify the position on the spot regarding the nature of the crop. It is further submitted that whatever particulars are furnished the same are not sent to insurance company. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua ops no.1 and 2 made.
4. On being impleaded and on notice initially none appeared on behalf of op no.3 and as such op no.3 was proceeded against exparte. However, later on op no.3 appeared through counsel and moved application for setting aside exparte proceedings which was allowed. The op no.3 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action and non impleading of Deputy Director Agriculture department, Sirsa, State Govt. etc. being necessary parties and that it is the duty of the banker for loanee farmer to ensure correct particulars to be uploaded in all respect with regard to the land village, crop name etc. as required and covering the risk of only notified crops. On merits, it is submitted that portal data uploaded by the bank shown the paddy crop of complainant in village Jodhkan, Tehsil and District Sirsa. The insurance coverage is always according to data uploaded by bank. There is no insurance of Narma crop of complainant of village Jodhkan, Tehsil and District Sirsa. The insurance coverage has been given for the crop name and village name mentioned by the bank on the NCIP portal and compensation amount, if any is payable, the same is paid to the concerned bank and bank transfers the same in the account of said loanee, in case any loss is assessed for that village and crop which is shown against the crop and name of person on the portal data. No one (State Govt., answering op or the bank) can travel beyond the said data record uploaded by the bank. Until and unless any mistake is corrected within stipulated period, the said data record uploaded on the portal by the bank is binding upon the parties. It is further submitted that answering op cannot go and pay beyond the data received, uploaded by the bank while getting the insurance coverage about the particular farmer, as contract of insurance is based upon principle of utmost good faith and coverage is given according to data reported/ uploaded by the bank. That there was an option available with the bank to get the mistake corrected within stipulated period, if any occurred at the time of uploading the data. Loss of crop is to be paid by answering op after receipt of loss of assessment after comparing the entire data record with the portal record by way of cross checking the same and in case of any wrong particulars about name of crop or insured or village etc. and if there is loss, than decision about payment is taken according to the portal data record. There was no natural calamity or loss to the paddy crop of Kharif 2017 of village Jodhkan, Tehsil and District Sirsa uploaded by the banker of complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get the claim of crop damage from answering op. The complainant himself admitted that due to negligence, deficiency in service on the part of bank, his narma crop of Kharif, 2017 was not insured by his bank and complainant is not entitled for any compensation for the damage of his crop from answering op. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1/A and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C11.
6. On the other hand, ops no.1 and 2 have tendered affidavit of Sh. Bajrang Sharma, Branch Manager as Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 and Ex.R3. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sonu Rathi, Legal Manager as Ex. RW3/A.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. The complainant is claiming insurance claim for the damage of his insured cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 but however ops no.1 and 2 bank have pleaded that as per the declaration/ proposal form submitted to the bank, the complainant has disclosed that he had been sowing paddy crop during Kharif season in his about four acres of land and as such ops no.1 and 2 got insured the paddy crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 with op no.3 and not cotton crop. The ops no.1 and 2 have also placed on file copy of proposal form Ex.R3 which is duly signed by complainant and in which he has declared that he will sow paddy crop in Kharif, season and as such at the viability of the paddy crop the crop loan has been sanctioned to the complainants by ops no.1 and 2. The complainant has not placed on file any other document/ letter to prove the fact that he has ever intimated the ops no.1 and 2 regarding change of pattern of crop i.e. from paddy to cotton. Further more, from the copy of pass book placed on file by complainant himself as Ex.C9, it is evident that complainant has been availing crop loan from ops no.1 and 2 at the viability of paddy crop and it is very well known fact that more loan amount is sanctioned for paddy crop than the cotton crop. Moreover, complainant has not placed on file any proof regarding loss/ damage to his alleged insured cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. As such now complainant is estopped from claiming insurance claim of cotton crop by his own act and conduct because due to own lapses of complainant himself, his cotton crop could not be insured. Therefore, complainant is not entitled to any insurance claim amount from any of the ops.
9. 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: 29.03.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
