Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/499/2019

Maya Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz Gen. Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Sukhbir Dhaka

03 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHABAD.

                                                      Complaint Case No.499 of 2019.                                                                Date of institution:24.12.2019.                                                          Date of decision: 03.06.2024

Maya Devi wife of Raghbir resident of village Khabra Kalan Tehsil & District Fatehabad

                                                                        …Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited SCO No.156 to 159, Second floor, Sector 9 Chandigarh.
2. Punjab National Bank, Branch Adampur Village Adampur Tehsil Adampur District Hisar through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Mini Secretariat, Phase-II Fatehabad through its authorized officer.

                                                                   ...Opposite parties.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

Present:          Sh.Sukhbir Dhaka, Advocate, for the complainant.                                      Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                                       Sh.Inder Singh Sihag,Advocate for Op No.2.                                                      Sh.Sanjay, ASO on behalf of Op No.3.

 

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

         

 

ORDER

SH.RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                    In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is  owner of agriculture land, situated at Village Khabra Kalan Tehsil & District Fatehabad, the details of which is mentioned in para No.1 in the compliant; that the complainant has obtained a loan under kisan credit card; that Op No.2 had insured the crop (cotton) of complainant under the Govt. scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the year 2017-18 with the OP No.1 by deducting an amount of Rs.2097.60/- on 31.07.2017 in the name of ‘Crop Insurance’ from the account of complainant; that the complainant had sown cotton crop on the land in question but it got damaged;  that the complainant intimated the Ops and requested to pay the compensation but despite that the complainant has not received any claim till today, due to which the complainant has suffered financial loss. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, this compliant.  

2.                           On notice, Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, locus standi, maintainability and suppression of material facts etc.  It has been further submitted that as per averments of the complaint, the loss of cotton crop has been affected in Village Khabra Kalan Tehsil & District Fatehabad but regarding this no intimation was ever given to it; that as per record, provided by the bank, the crop of cotton standing on the land of the farmer situated at village Adampur Tehsil Adampur District Hisar was insured but as per the complainant the crop standing on land situated in village Khabra Kalan was insured, therefore, insurance company cannot be held liable. It has been further submitted that the complainant has never given any intimation, therefore, the complainant is not eligible for any claim as there was no shortfall of yield in the notified area. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          OP No.2 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, locus standi, maintainability, concealment of material facts and complaint being false and frivolous have been taken.  It has been further submitted the insurance premium amount of Rs.2097.60 for cotton crop of land 28 kanal in village Khabran Kalan was debited from the account of the complainant on 31.07.2017 and was remitted to the insurance company/OP No.1; that for the cotton crop was insured with Op No.2, therefore, the insurance company being insurer is liable to indemnify the loss of crop, if any caused to farmer. 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.

3.                          OP No.3 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has neither given any application to the replying Op for inspection of his crops and the insurance of the crop has never been done with the replying Op and even no record is lying with it. It has been further submitted that as per notification issued by the government of Haryana the Threshold yield was 633.24 Kgs./Hect. and actual yield of village was 551.95 Kgs./Hectare. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

5.                          In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A with documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C2 whereas learned counsel for the Op No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Annexure R1 to Annexure R5, OP No.2 has tendered affidavit and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R4 and the Op No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A with documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R3.

6.                          We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.                          Undisputedly, the insurance premium for insuring the cotton crop of the complainant was debited by the Op No.2/bank and was remitted to Op No.1/insurance company. However, the insurance company has come with the plea that the crop sown at village Khabran Kalan, for which the claim has been sought by the complainant, was not insured because as per the record of the bank/Op no.2 the land of village Adampur was insured. On the other hand, the Op No.2/bank has submitted in its reply that cotton crop was insured with Op No.1, therefore, the insurance company being insurer is liable to indemnify the loss of crop, if any caused to farmer because the premium was remitted without any delay and it was for the insurance company to verify the data of insured farmers pertaining to the area insured. There are sufficient material available on the case file to show that the Op No.1 (insurance company) is found deficient in service and is also found involved in unfair trade practice and the Op No.2/bank is also found negligent in sending the wrong name of the village to the insurance company as is evident through Annexure R1 (policy schedule) and proposal and declaration form (Annexure R2). In the given facts and circumstances of this case, the Op No.1 (insurance company) only is found liable to pay claim amount for the damages to the cotton crop of complainant. The complainant has not placed any document on the case file showing that he had ever given any intimation to the Ops with regard to crop loss as per operational guidelines, therefore, in the absence of any intimation, survey of the land in question could not be got conducted, hence, the localized claim is not payable to  the complainant.

8.                          The Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.33005/- per hectare to the cotton crop in village Khabran Kalan where the land of complainant falls and as per record the complainant has suffered a loss in the land 28 marla which comes to 1.41 hectare. 

9.                          Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.1-insurance company to pay Rs.46537/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 7 % p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days from today. Hence, the present complaint is accepted with cost.  In the present case, OP No.1-bank has given wrong name of the area in which land was under survey for the damage of crops.  The name of the area is actually Khabran Kalan while negligently; the officials of bank/OP No.2 have given wrong name of the area to be Adampur.  So, cost of Rs.11,000/- is imposed on the bank/OP No.2 which shall be paid to the complainant.  The name of village be corrected in the record.  Complaint against Op No.3 stands dismissed.    

 

10.                        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. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission.                                                                 Dated: 03.06.2024

                                                                                                        

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

Member                                  Member                                         President