Haryana

Karnal

CC/209/2017

Jasmer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Rampal Chaudhary

13 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                      Complaint No.209 of 2017

                                                      Date of instt. 04.07.2017

                                                      Date of decision 13.07.2018

 

1. Jasmer Singh son of Fateh Singh.

2. Sunil Kumar son of Fateh Singh.

 Resident of village Taraori, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal.

 

…….Complainants.

                                                Versus              

 

1. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, G.E. Palaza Airport Road, Yervada Pune 411006 through its Authorized person.

2. State Bank of India, Branch at Taraori, District Karnal through its Manager.

 

                                                                …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before    Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

      Sh. Anil Sharma………Member

               

 Present   Shri Rampal Chaudhay Advocate for complainant.

                  Shri Pardeep Gupta Advocate for OP no.2

                   OP no.1 exparte.

                                     

ORDER:                    

                (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainants are agriculturists and have their agriculture land at village Saikpur, District Karnal. The complainants have obtained K.C.C. from the OP no.2 vide account no.34438242113. As per the scheme of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna, the OP no.2 paid a sum of Rs.1169/- to the OP no.1 on 27.12.2016 for P.M.F.B.Y. 2016-2017. The crops of the complainants were damaged to blockage of water of heavy rain and the same was intimated to the OPs and also moved an application to DDA, Karnal but no action has been taken. Again on 3.4.2017 the complainants made complaint on C.M. window and then the field was inspected on 12.04.2017 by DDA, Karnal in which the officials gave report that crops of wheat of one and half acre damages about 87% but no compensation has been given by the OP no.1 knowingly and intentionally. The complainants got served a legal notice dated 2.6.2017 upon the OPs through their counsel calling upon them to compensate to the rune of Rs.55000/- per acre as per policy to the complainants but OPs neither gave any reply to the said notice nor gave any compensation to the complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP no.1 did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte by the order of this Forum dated 22.08.2017.

3.             OP no.2 appeared and filed its written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi and cause of action; complainant does not come under the definition of consumer and the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. On merits, it is submitted that complainant no.2 has obtained a KCC limit under loan account no.34438242113 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on 27.12.2016 from the OP and in order to secure the crops of the complainant no.2 the OP no.2 after deducting premium of Rs.1169/- (for 1.416 Hectare at the rate of Rs.825/- per Hectare) for wheat insurance, from the account of the complainant no.2 i.e. loan account has sent to OP no.1 for insurance under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna for the year 2016-2017 through DD no.332060 dated 27.12.2016 of Rs.3,74,458/- which includes premium of other borrowers as well. It is further submitted that no intimation regarding damage/loss of crop has not been intimated to the OP no.2. It is further submitted that OP no.1 who has to indemnify the damage/loss, if any, occurred to the complainant being insurer of the crops. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1.The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and closed the evidence on 30.1.2018.

4.             On the other hand, OP no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sher Singh Deputy Manager Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 and closed the evidence on 8.6.2018.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

6.             From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the complainants have obtained KCC limit from OP no.2. The OP no.2 admitted that a sum of Rs.1169/- were deducted from his account as insurance premium and same was sent to the OP no.1 under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (hereinafter referred as PMFBY) for the year 2016-2017 vide DD no. 332060 dated 27.12.2016 of Rs.3,74,458/- which includes premium of other borrowers as well which was deducted at the rate of Rs.825/- per Hectare for wheat crop insurance.

7.             The complainant alleged that the wheat crop of the complainants was damaged due to blockage of water of heavy rain and same was intimated to the OPs. The complainant moved an application to the DDA Karnal but he has taken no action. It is further alleged that again on 3.4.2017 the complainant made complaint on CM window and then the fields were inspected by the committee constituted by DDA Karnal on 12.04.2017, who gave report about the damage of wheat crop for 1½ acre of the complainants and found the damage of 87% but till today no compensation has been paid by OP no.1.

8.             To prove the allegations the complainant placed a copy of application dated 21.3.2017 Ex.C5 and another application dated 7.4.2017. The complainant also produced a copy of document received from the Chief Minister Office Haryana as Ex.C8. The complainants  produced the copy of the inspection report of the Committee of Agriculture Department as Ex.C3 which shows 87% damage of the wheat crop in 1½ acre of land of the complainant. On perusal of this report it is clear that the committee has specifically mentioned in its report that on receipt of applications from the complainant on 10.04.2017, wheat crop was inspected on 12.04.2017 and found that wheat crop of the complainant in 1½ acre was damaged to the extent of 87% due to blockage of water. It is pertinent to mention here that the OP no.2 has admitted about the KCC limit and about the deposit of the premium of the insurance to the OP no.1. The complainants have also produced on the file the copy of account statements of KCC limit of both the complainants as Ex.C1 and Ex.C2. The Ex.C1 is the account statement of Jasmer Singh complainant which shows that Rs.1169/- has been deducted from his limit account no.34429298644. The account statement of Sunil Kumar complainant is Ex.C2 having KCC account no.34438242113 and no doubt the same is not readable but the OP no.2 has admitted about the deduction regarding the premium of insurance from his account.

9.              From the report it has been proved by the complainant on the file that there was wheat crop in 1½ acres land of the complainant which was damaged upto 87%. The complainants have proved on the file by documentary evidence that the premium for the insurance of their wheat crop has been deducted by OP no.2 from their KCC account and paid the same to the OP no.1 for insurance of the wheat crop of the complainants under the PMFBY. The OP no.1 did not appear and proceeded against exparte. Therefore, the evidence of the complainants goes unrebutted against the OP no.1 and the same cannot be disbelieved. When the premium has been received by OP no.1 through OP no.2, the OP no.1 was duty bound to pay the insured amount for the damage to the wheat crop of the complainants. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that OP no.1 has failed to indemnify the loss of the complainants. Hence the OP no.1 is deficient in service.

10.            It is pertinent to mention here that the complainants have placed a pamphlet Ex.C4 of the OP no.1 vide which the insured sum of the wheat crop has been shown to be Rs.55000/-. It is not clear from this pamphlet that the insured amount of Rs.55000/- is for one acre or for one hectare. As stated above the premium was deducted by OP no.2  on the basis of hectare, therefore, the amount shown in the pamphlet is taken by this Forum as insured amount for one hectare. It is pertinent to mention here that one hectare consists of 2½ acres.  The crop of the complainant was damaged in 1½ acre, therefore, the insured value for the 1½ acres comes to Rs.33000/-.  The damage as per report was 87%, so in our opinion the complainants are entitled to 87% of the amount of Rs.33000/-which comes to Rs.29040/- for thier 1½ acre of wheat crop.

11.            Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.1 to pay Rs.29040/- to the complainants. We further direct the OP no.1 to pay Rs.3300/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which the abovesaid amount will carry interest @ 8% Per annum from the date or order till its realization.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 13.07.2018

                                                                       

                                                                       President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                        (Anil Sharma)

                            Member