Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/297/2021

Sandeep - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Anand Godara

20 Nov 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.   

 

                                                Complaint No.         297 of 2021.                                                                          Date of Institution:  25.11.2021

                                                Date of order:           20.11.2024      

 

Sandeep son of Sh. Mahavir, resident of village Gopalwas, Tehsil Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri.

..Complainant.

                                                VERSUS

1.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Registered office- Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-411006, IRDA registered No. 133, Block-4. First Floor, Dhiru Bhai Ambani Knowledge City, New Mumbai (Maharashtra) through Managing Director.

 2.HDFC Bank Ltd. B.O.Satnali, Tehsil Satnali, Distt. Mahendergarh through its Branch Manager.

                                                                 ..Opposite parties.

          COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,

Before: -      Hon’ble Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal, President

                   Hon’ble Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Argued by: Sh. Anand Godara, Adv. for complainant.

                    Sh. Satender Ghanghas, Adv. for OP no.1.

                    Sh. P.K.Punia, Adv. for OP no.2.

 

O R D E R

                    The complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) with the averments that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and maintain a Kisan Gold Card account with respondent no.2 bearing account No.50200020424670. The complainant had insured its cotton crop under the scheme of PMFBY through Bajaj Allianz Company vide policy No.040106191041497487101.        In this regard a premium of Rs. 3416.36/- was debited on 15.07.2019 to bank account of the complainant.

          It is alleged that the kharif season 2019 crop of complainant and the other farmers of village Gopalwas were given claim for fully damaged crop after survey carried out by agriculture department and crop was declared 100% damaged.  The complainant had submitted the entire documents and other information to OPs in order to get the claims of his damaged 2019 Kharif crop, which was fully insured under PMFBY Scheme but all in vain. It is further submitted that the complainant has also served the legal notice through registered post on 29.9.2020, but the OPs did not take any action on the request of the complainant. The complainant had visited the office of the OPs and requested them to compensate the loss but to no effect and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- as    claim of cotton crop as per law alongwith future interest @ 24 % p.m. till its realization along with compensation and the litigation expenses besides any other relief for which the complainant is found entitled.

2.                 The OP no.1 in written statement has submitted that the policy bearing number OG-20-1207-5015-00017768 was issued for cotton crop by the answering respondent under the operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY). It is further submitted that complainant has not come with clean hands and have suppressed the true and material facts. As per the complaint, the farmer/complainant was insured for crop on land in village Gopalwas whereas as per details received from the bank, the farmer was insured against the notified crop on land in village Kohlawas (132) Furthermore, there was no shortfall of yield for the said crop in the given IU (Insurance Unit) as per the data provided by the Government, hence, yield claim is not payable to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                The opposite party no. 2 also contested the complaint and filed its written statement with the averments that the opposite party no. 2 insured the crop of complainant from the Insurance Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited i.e. opposite party no. 1 and premium amount was paid to the insurance company with requisite documents of the loan papers of the complainant at that very time and after that insurance company was liable to pay any loss etc. of the crops of complainant. It is also contended that opposite party no. 2 is not liable to pay any relief to the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                Both the parties in support of their respective averments tendered in documentary evidence their respective affidavits/averments and adduced certain documents. During the arguments, the counsel for the complainant has submitted a letter No.3209 dt. 19.11.2024 issued by Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Charkhi Dadri, wherein average production of cotton was 158.60 kg/hectare against threshold yield of 392.94 kg/hectare leading loss to the extent of 59.63% (rounded to 60%) to the cotton crop. The sum insured for cotton crop was Rs.170,818/- (for which premium of Rs.3416/- was debited  to the account of the complainant) and 60% of the same works out to  Rs.1,02,490/-. Reference of relevant record shall be given in this order. 

5.                 We have heard the counsel for parties and gone through the case file and documents placed on record thoroughly and after hearing the rival contentions of the parties, we are of the convinced view that the present complaint deserves merit partially, for the reasons mentioned hereinafter.

6.                We are of the view that it is not in dispute that the insurance premium for Rs.3416/- for insurance of crop of the complainant was debited to his bank account and paid to insurance company i.e. OP no. 2. But due to mistake of the bank, the name of village was wrongly mentioned as “Kohlawas” instead of village “Gopalwas” where the land is situated on which crop of cotton was sown and premium for insurance was debited to the account of the complainant. Resultantly the crop of the complainant remained un-insured, but premium was retained by the insurance company till now. The complainant could not prove on record as to what actual loss has caused to him due to damage of crop in village Gopalwas as no document/evidence has been submitted in this regard. However, OP no.1 has submitted statement of threshold and actual average yield data of village Kohlawas (132) which is not applicable for the crop on land in village Gopalwas. The liability for mentioning wrong name of village lies on the Bank in terms of Revamped Operational Guidelines. In this connection reference is invited to Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana - Revamped Operational Guidelines.  The relevant Clause 24 of the said guidelines is reproduced below: -

24. Important Conditions/Clauses applicable for Coverage of Risks:

24.1 ICs shall have received the premium for coverage either from the bank, channel partner, insurance intermediary or directly. In case of any loss in transit due to negligence by these agencies or non-remittance of premium by these agencies, the concerned bank/intermediaries shall be liable for payment of claims.

24.2 In case of any substantial misreporting by nodal bank/branch with respect to loanee farmers coverage which may include incorrect insured and sown acreage and survey number details, bank account details & IU details etc., the concerned bank only shall be liable for such misreporting.

As such in view of clause 24 of the operational guidelines, the bank is liable to pay compensation and it also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of bank. Hence, bank is liable to pay the claim of Rs.1,02,490/- to the complainant being 60% (loss to the cotton crop) of the sum insured  Rs.1,70,818/-.

7.                In view of aforesaid discussion and findings and documents placed on record and arguments advanced by the counsel of the parties, the complaint is partly allowed, with the following directions:-

1. OP no.1, the insurance company viz. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.  to refund premium amount of Rs. 3416/- to complainant as well as share of State and Central Government alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of debiting account of the complainant i.e. 15.07.2019 till final realization.
2. OP-2, HDFC Bank to pay Rs.1,02,490/- to the complainant after deducting the premium of Rs.3416/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. from 25.11.2021 being date of filing the complaint.
3. OP no.2, HDFC Bank Ltd. to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) on account of mental agony, harassment caused to the complainant because of their mistake mentioning wrong name of the village.
4. OP no.2 to pay a sum of Rs. 10000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as litigation expenses.

The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy, failing which the said amount shall also attract interest @12% p.a. from the defaulted period till its actual realization.

8.                If the order of this Commission is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to file execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the defaulting party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which shall not 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 Rs. one lac or with both. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs as per rules and this order be promptly uploaded on the website of this Commission. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.