Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 382
Instituted on : 15.09.2020
Decided on : 07.08.2023
Krishan S/o Sh. Ram Mehar R/o Village Kiloi Dopana, Tehsil & District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., J.E. Plaza, Airport Road, Yervada, Pune CIN:U66010PN2000PLC015329.
- A.D.O.Anil Ahlawat(Agriculture Department Rohtak).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Puneet Chahal, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Anil Ahlawat, ADO for opposite party No.2 in person.
ORDER
VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he has sown paddy crop in his fields and the same was got insured with the respondent company. The alleged crop was destroyed and the complainant informed the same telephonically to the opposite parties within 72 hours. The officials of the opposite party and ADO Anil Ahlawat visited the spot and taken the photographs of damaged crop. But no amount of loss has been transferred to the account of complainant. After repeated requests complainant came to know that the insurance of crop was cancelled by the company. As such, the act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pass the claim amount of Rs.20000/- per acre on account of damage of crop alongwith interest, to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that as per the complainant, loss of paddy(Dhan) crop has been effected due to heavy rainfall, snowfall & hailstorm. The policy of the complainant covered the crop season of Kharif 2019 for the cultivation of Paddy(Dhan) and providing insurance coverage for localized risks which is intended to provide insurance cover at individual farm level to crop covering losses due to occurrence of localized perils/calamities vis. Landslide, hailstorm and inundation affecting part of a notified unit or a plot. The complainant has failed to mention about the manner of loss and hence the same is not covered under the above mentioned clause. It is submitted that although the insured had got insured his crop, but they did not receive any timely claim intimation for any claim from the complainant, as is required as per the revised Operational guidelines. Moreover the farmer was insured in the notified area of Village Kiloi Dopana(61) Tehsil & District Rohtak for insured crop Paddy. There is no shortfall of yield in the said area insured as per the records and information passed by the Bank to insure the crops of the insured. Hence, in absence of any timely claim intimation, opposite party was not in a position to appoint a surveyor to survey the loss if any. The localized claim is not payable in absence of timely intimation causing inability to survey the land/loss if any, caused to the insured in accordance with the rules framed. Further yield loss is not payable as there is no yield loss as per government notification. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1 and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party No. 2 appeared and submitted his amended reply that date of intimation of loss was 16.12.2019 and field inspection for loss assessment was 23.12.2019 which was in the stipulated time i.e. with 10 days of appointment of loss assessor by the company as prescribed in PMFBY Guidelines. The reason for crop loss was hail storm and the crop was not available in cut and spread condition in the field under inspection at the time of inspection. It is further submitted that as per the conditions of remains (residues) of the crop and other threshing and paraphernalia which were still in the field corroborated. This might have been done by the farmer as it (threshing) had already been late i.e. upto December which is generally completed with in the month of November. For how long had the farmer been waiting for the inspection of his field as he had to sow his next season wheat crop in the same field. During the loss assessing there was considerable reduction in the crop yield due to heavy impact of hailing which resulted into immense shattering of the grains. The grains were found spread over the field clearly indicating loss of the yield of the crop. The loss assessor which had been appointed by the insurance company was also present at the time of field inspection and after agreed upon the recorded loss he signed on the loss assessment report i.e. Form No. 3. It was also observed that the complainant suffered considerable loss in the terms of the quantity that occurred due to heavy shattering of the grains as well as in the terms of quality that occurred due to soaking of the grains for the prolonged hours which resulted into discoloration of the grains. Opposite party no. 2 prayed that the complaint qua the opposite party no. 2 may kindly be dismissed with cost.
4. Complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed his evidence on dated 23.12.2021. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and closed his evidence on 16.06.2023. Ld. ADO for opposite party no.2 vide his separate statement has stated that reply already filed on their behalf be read as evidence and closed his evidence on 11.01.2023.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that as per the statement of account Ex.C2, the amount of insurance under PMFBY Kharif and PMFBY Rabi has been deducted from the account of complainant. The grievance of the complainant is that his crop was destroyed and he timely intimated the insurance company about the same but the claim has not been paid to him despite his repeated requests and even after assessment of loss by the surveyor. On the other hand, it has been submitted by ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 that in absence of any timely claim intimation, opposite party was not in a position to appoint a surveyor to survey the loss if any and the localized claim is not payable in absence of timely intimation causing inability to survey the land/loss if any, caused to the insured in accordance with the rules framed. But on the other hand as per the reply filed by opposite party No.2 date of intimation of loss was 16.12.2019 and field inspection for loss assessment was 23.12.2019 which was in the stipulated time i.e. with 10 days of appointment of loss assessor by the company as prescribed in PMFBY Guidelines. The reason for crop loss was hail storm and the crop was not available in cut and spread condition in the field under inspection at the time of inspection. The remains (residues) of the crop and other threshing and paraphernalia which were still in the field corroborated. This might have been done by the farmer as it (threshing) had already been late i.e. upto December which is generally completed with in the month of November. It is further submitted by the opposite party No.2 that the grains were found spread over the field clearly indicating loss of the yield of the crop. The loss assessor which had been appointed by the insurance company was also present at the time of field inspection and after agreed upon the recorded loss he signed on the loss assessment report i.e. Form No. 3. The complainant suffered considerable loss in the terms of the quantity that occurred due to heavy shattering of the grains as well as in the terms of quality that occurred due to soaking of the grains for the prolonged hours which resulted into discoloration of the grains. Hence the plea taken by the opposite party No.1 that “in absence of timely intimation, opposite party was not in a position to appoint a surveyor to survey the loss if any and the localized claim is not payable” is not genuine. It has been specifically mentioned in the reply of respondent no. 2 that the loss assessor which had been appointed by the insurance company was also present at the time of field inspection and after agreed upon the recorded loss, he signed on the loss assessment report i.e. Form No. 3. This report was signed by the farmer, ADO respondent no.2 and also by the surveyor of the insurance company. This form no.3 has been placed on record by the opposite party No.2 as Annexure -1, which itself shows that the field of the complainant was inspected by the Surveyor and loss assessor, Block Agriculture Officer in the presence of complainant on dated 23.12.2019 and there was 70% loss in the 1.6 hectare land of complainant due to hailstorm. Henc the complainant has suffered loss upto 70% in 1.6 hectare(3.95369 acres) (1 hectare =2.471 acres) and the complainant has demanded Rs.20,000/- per acre. As per our opinion, we have assessed the loss as Rs.20,000/- per acre. Hence the complainant suffered loss in 1.6 hectare(3.95369 acres) which comes to Rs.79072/-(20,000 x 3.9536=79072/-). Hence the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.79072/- from the opposite party No.1.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.79072/-(Rupees seventy nine thousand and seventy two only) towards loss of crops alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.15.09.2020 till its realization, also to pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
07.08.2023.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member.
