Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/230/2018

Atma Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Subash Jayani

02 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.229 of 2018.                                                              Date of Instt.:  21.08.2018.                                                                        Date of Decision: 02.05.2023

Aatma Ram son of Ram Partap resident of Khara Kheri Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, GE Plaza Air Port Road Yarwada, Pune, 411006 Registered No.113 through its Managing Director/General Manager.

2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Kamla Nagar, Kamla Palace Red Square Market, Hisar District Hisar.

3.Central Bank of India Branch G.T.Road, Fatehabad through its Branch Manager now State Bank of India, Fatehabad.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                   Sh.S.C.Jyani, Advocate for complainant.                                                  Sh. U.K.Gera, Advocate for Ops No.1 & 2.                                                           Sh.M.K.Dharnia, Advocate for Op No.3.  

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                  DR.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.                                  

 

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                             Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is owner in possession of land situated at Khara Kheri Tehsil & District Fatehabad, the detail of which is mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint; that the complainant had sown cotton crops/kharif crops on the land in question; that the complainant got the standing crop insured under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the Ops No.1 & 2 on 29.07.2017 and in this regard an amount of Rs.8575/- was debited from his account by Op No.3 as premium of the insurance in question, which was credited in the account of Ops No. 1 & 2; that the cotton crop of the complainant got damaged but till today no compensation on account of loss of crop has been given to him despite the fact that other farmers of nearby fields have already received the compensation; that despite many several requests and  the claim for damaged crops has not been paid by the Ops, due to which complainant has suffered great financial losses. In the end, prayer has been made for allowing compensation for lost crops in sum of Rs.3,66,000/-. Rs.20,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- have also been claimed towards mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. Any other relief at the discretion of this Commission also sought.

2.                          Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately.  In the joint reply, Ops No.1 & 2 have taken several preliminary objections such as cause of action and locus standi etc. It has been further averred that the present complaint before this Commission is not maintainable because  except localized claims, all other perils were to be finalised by government agencies and  the complainant should have approached DAC & FW Department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and decision of said department would have been binding on State Government/Insurance Company/Banks/farmers but instead of that the complainants had approached the District Consumer Commission (earlier Consumer Forum) with malafide intention by violating standard terms and conditions of the scheme. Further, the complainant had never given any intimation to the insurance company regarding any loss despite the fact that there is a condition for immediate intimation of claim within 48 hours of loss. It has been further averred that no proof of loss or weather report has been submitted with insurance company by the complainant and even quantification of loss cannot be determined in absence of necessary survey and there is no privity of contract between complainants and insurance company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of insurance company.  Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.     

3.                          In its reply, Op No.3 has submitted that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and the complaint is bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties. It has been further submitted that an amount of Rs.8575/- was debited from the bank account of the complainant as premium of cotton crops in 6.2145 hectare which was sent to the bank through NEFT under UTR No.CBINH 17212166819 on 31.07.2018 of Rs.1007976/- and CBINH 17213132634 on 01.08.2017 of Rs.700000; that when the complainant did not submit the aadhar card the insurance company returned the amount which was deposited in the account of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of bank. Other contentions have also been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In the end, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.                          

4.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

 5.                         On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Smt.Sarpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Assistant Manager Legal and documents Annexure R7 to Annexure R10. Learned counsel for Op No.3 has tendered documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R6 in evidence

 have also been placed on file. Thereafter, the evidence of the Ops was closed.

6.                          We have heard oral final arguments from both sides and perused the case file minutely.

7.                          The grievance of the complainant is that his cotton crop for the Khariff, 2017 season was damaged but he has not received any insurance claim till today. The complainant in order to prove his case, has placed on file copy of various jamabandis as Ex.C1, Ex.C2, Ex.C7 and khasra girdawari Ex.C6. The complainant has also placed on record copy of statement of account Annexure C3, from which it is proved on record that on 29.07.2017, an amount of Rs.8575/- was deducted from his account by op no.3 as insurance premium for insuring the cotton crop of kharif 2017 with Ops  no.1 & 2. 

8.                          OP No.3 in its written statement has mentioned that  an amount of Rs.8575/- was debited from the bank account of the complainant as premium of cotton crops in 6.2145 hectare which was sent to the bank through NEFT under UTR No.CBINH 17212166819 on 31.07.2018 of Rs.1007976/- and CBINH 17213132634 on 01.08.2017 of Rs.700000; that when the complainant did not submit the aadhar card the insurance company returned the amount which was deposited in the account of the complainant.

9.                          The complainant has alleged that his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 season was damaged and the concerned department had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.24,000/- per acre.  But perusal of the case file reveals that the by concerned Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.17294/- per acre with regard to loss of cotton crop in Khariff 2017 in village Khara Kheri.

10.                        Undisputedly, the insurance company had accepted the payment qua insurance premium of crop and kept the same with it for a longer period of  more than one year and further returned the same  when the insured crop had already been reportedly damaged, meaning thereby that OPs No.1 & 2 had accepted the premium without any objection and now when the damage to the crop of complainant has been caused, then OPs No.1  & 2 arbitrarily and illegally denying to pay the genuine claim of the complainant. Perusal of the statement of account of the complainant reveals that the amount of Rs.8575/- being insurance premium was credited in the account of the complainant on 20.08.2018 (Annexure R1). So, the OPs no.1 & 2 are found deficient in service and are also found involved in unfair trade practice. In the given facts and circumstances of this case, the Op No.1 & 2/insurance company only is found liable to pay claim amount for the damages to the cotton crop of complainant for Kharif 2017 season and op no.3/bank is not found responsible in this regard.  There is nothing on the file to show that the complainant had ever intimated about the loss to the Ops within stipulated period as per the guidelines of the government with regard to loss of crop, therefore, localized claim has been rejected.

11.                        Perusal of the case file reveals that the complainant has suffered loss of sown crop in 6.214 hectare and the concerned Agriculture Department in its report has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.17294/- per acre, therefore, it would be just and proper to give compensation to the complainant as assessed by the concerned agriculture department in its report on yield basis.

12.                        Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against OPs No.1 & 2/insurance company with a direction as follows:

(1)                        To pay an amount of Rs.2,65,269/- (in round figure) as insurance claim amount to the complainant for the damages of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017, sown by him in 6.214 hectare (15.34 acre) after deducting the amount of Rs.8575/- which was deposited in the account of the complainant on 20.08.2018.

(2)                        To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.11,000/- (Rs.Eleven Thousand) towards compensation for harassment and mental agony etc. suffered by the complainant as well as for litigation expenses.

                             The amount mentioned at Sr. No. (1) would carry simple interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the compliant till actual payment.  The order be complied within a period of 30 days from today, failing which the entire amount mentioned at Sr. Nos. (1) & (2) above would carry simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.  In the given facts and circumstances of this case, no deficiency is found on the part of OP no.3/bank, therefore, complaint against Op No.3 stands dismissed.  

13.                        In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission, as per rules, for perusal of parties herein. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 02.05.2023

                                                                                                        

          (K.S.Nirania)                       (Harisha Mehta)                (Rajbir Singh)                              Member                               Member                                             President