Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/249/2020

Maina - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sukhbir Dhaka

23 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.249 of 2020.                                                              Date of Instt.: 25.09.2020.                                                                         Date of Decision: 23.04.2024.

Smt.Maina wife of Rohtash Kumar resident of village & Post Office Banawali Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 150-156, Sector 9C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Area Manager-Agri Business.

2.Common Service Centre (CSC) near Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Main Chowk, village Bangaon Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its proprietor Lilu Ram.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                  Sh.Sukhbir Dhaka, Advocate for complainant.                                          Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                                  OP No.2 exparte VOD 09.11.2020.                           

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

ORDER

SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER

                     Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is owner in possession of land as mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint situated at Village Banawali Tehsil & Fatehabad. It is alleged that the complainant had sown kharif crops in 0.6 hectare land and got it insured under PMFBY through Op No.2 by depositing a sum of Rs.919/- in cash vide receipt No.040106190040082385823 dated 20.07.2019; that all the details including the bank account No.33618650535 were also furnished by the complainant to the Op No.1; that the cotton crop (Kharif 2019) of the complainant got damaged and the losses were assessed @ Rs.15,000/- per acre by the concerned department. The complainant requested the Ops to make the compensation on account of loss of insured crop number of times but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

2.                          Op No.1 filed its reply wherein it has been submitted that the booking of insurance of kharif 2019 was done on the basis of the farmers details available in the PMFBY Govt. Portal of the farmers as uploaded by the bank; that the concerned branches of banks and nodal banks/DCCBs in case of PACS will also collect the list of individual insured farmers (both loanee and non-loanee) with requisite details like name, father’s name etc. from concerned branch in soft copy for further reconciliation and send the same to the concerned insurance company within 15 days after final cut-off date for submission of proposal/declaration to the insurance company; that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission as the complainant should have approached to DAC/FW department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim but instead of doing so, the complainant has filed the present complaint; that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and replying OP.  Preliminary objections such as cause of action and complaint being false and frivolous have also taken. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                          Op No.2 did not appear before this Commission despite issuance of summons through registered post, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.11.2020.

4.                          In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C3 whereas the Op No.1 has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure RW1/1 to Annexure RW1/2.

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

6.                          Perusal of Annexure C1 reveals that the kharif crop 2019 on 0.6 hectare land of complainant was insured with OP No.1and regarding this amount of Rs.919.2 was paid to the Op No.1 as premium.  The complainant  has come with the plea that the insured crop got damaged due to natural calamities but the Op No1 did not pay the compensation on account of damaged insured crop.  During the course of arguments learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record copy of assessment report and argued that the concerned department has assessed the loss of Kharif 2019 in village Banawali to the tune of Rs.19122/- per hectare. Undisputedly, the insured crop of the complainant got damaged during the subsistence of the policy for which the Op No.1 had received the premium which is still lying with the insurance company, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at the conclusion that the Op No.1 has failed to indemnify the loss of insured crop to the complainant.

7.                          Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.1-insurance company to pay Rs.11437/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization. The Op No.1/insurance company is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. The complaint against OP No.1 is allowed and dismissed against Op No.2.  The order be complied within a period of 45 days from today, failing which the entire amount would carry simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of this compliant till actual payment.      

8.                          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:23.04.2024

                                                                                                        

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