Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 188
Instituted on : 01.05.2018
Decided on : 12.01.2024
Ishwar Singh s/o Sh. Parbhu, R/o VPO Titoli Tehsil and District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. G.E. Plaza Airport Road Yerwara, Pune 411006(Maharashtra) through its General Manager.
- Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Brahmanwas through its Manager.
- Deputy Director Agriculture, Rohtak, Delhi Road, Near Jat Education society, Rohtak.
………..Respondent/Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.R.K.Suhag Advocate for complainant.
Sh.PuneetChahal, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Vinod Computer Operator alongwith Sh. Ashish Tehlan ADA for
opposite party No.3.
Opposite party No.2 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he got insured his paddy crop with the opposite party No.1 under Pradhan MantriFasalBeemaYojna on 31.07.2017 through opposite party No.2 and an amount of Rs.3895.38/- has been deducted from his account no.04495111006991 @ Rs.578.70 per acre as premium amount. The alleged paddy crop was damaged due to Tana galan/water filling. The complainant informed the same to the opposite party No. 3 through a written complaint on 17.10.2017. The officials of the opposite party No.1 & 3 visited the spot,took the photographs of damaged crop and assessed 30% damages.But no amount of loss has been paid to the complainant till date.Complainant requested many times to opposite party No.1 & 3 to pay the loss amount and also sent a legal notice to opposite party on 16.12.2017. After that opposite party No.3 sent a letter to opposite party No.1 and also informed to the counsel of complainant about the same. The act and conduct of the opposite party in lingering the lawful claim of the complainant is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant also served a legal notice dated 19.12.2017 to the opposite parties through his counsel and requested to pay the claim but the same has been refused by the opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pass the claim amount of Rupees One lac alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of survey of damaged crop on 30.10.2017 till the date of actual realisation besides Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and damages caused by the opposite party in delaying the payments and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party No.2 through registered post received back duly served. But none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 and as such opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.06.2018 of this Commission. Opposite party No.1 in preliminary objections of its reply has submitted that complainant has not intimated to the respondent insurance company regarding the damages to Tana Galan/Water Filling. Complainant has not intimated to the opposite party immediately for conducting the spot survey and has suppressed the material facts. On merits, it is submitted that official of the opposite party No.1 visited the field of complainant, took photographs and assessed 30% damages. It is further submitted that the respondent insurance company is to follow the law, rules and terms of contract of insurance according to the policy. The respondent insurance company is not liable for manipulated or fraudulent claims. The claim of the complainant is not genuine and the same has been dismissed. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party No.3 in its reply has submitted that there is no role of respondent no.3 at any part. The complainant paid to the company for crop insurance through bank and if there is any loss to the complainant, company is responsible to make the compensation to the complainant. On merits, it is submitted that the paddy crop was damaged due to water filling. In fact the paddy crop was damaged due to disease i.e. stem rot. As per operational guidelines of PMFJY insect-pest of disease attack of an individual could not be covered under localized calamities. However it is covered under crop cutting experiments. It is made clear that survey was conducted by survey team on the complaint lodged by the farmer. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be matter of record and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld..counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and closed his evidence on dated 12.02.2020. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on 07.01.2021. Opposite party no.3in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.OP3/A and closed his evidence on dated 28.10.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case it is not disputed that as per account statement Ex.C2, an amount of Rs.3895.38/- has been debited from the account of complainant on account of insurance under PMFBY Karif 2017. As per inspection report, Ex.R2, he suffered 30% loss of his crops. As per cover note Ex.R1, “All type of risk” has been covered by the respondent no.1. But, opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that complainant has not intimated to the respondent insurance company immediately regarding the damages due to Tana Galan/Water Filling and has suppressed the material facts. However, in para no.2 of its written reply, opposite party No.1 has submitted that official of the opposite party No.1 visited the field of complainant, took photographs and assessed 30% damages. Hence the reply of opposite party No.1 itself shows that the fields of the complainant were inspected by the inspection team including the officials of opposite party. Hence it is proved that the loss was assessed in the presence of official of opposite party No.1 as well as Block Agriculture Development Officer. In the present case, the complainant has not mentioned the exact agriculture land in which he suffered loss but perusal of the documents shows that complainant has suffered loss in his paddy crop. The assessment has been made by the joint committee including the farmer, agent of the insurance company and Block Agriculture officer. Perusal of this report shows that the complainant suffered a loss in his 7 acres of paddy crop upto 30% due to ‘Stem rotting’ disease. We have minutely perused the Haryana Govt. Notification dated 17.06.2013. As per section 4 coverage of risk and exclusions, Sub clause (b), it is submitted that : “Standing Crop(Sowing to harvesting): Comprehensive risk insurance will be provided to cover yield losses due to non-preventable risk, viz. Drought, dry spells, Flood, Inundation, Pests and Diseases, Landslides, Natural Fire and Lightening, Storm, Hailstorm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane and Tornado”. Meaning thereby as per the cover note ‘All risks’ are covered. As such in our view, complainant is entitled for a lumpsum compensation of Rs.70000/- on account of loss suffered by him in his fields.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.70000/-(Rupees seventy thousand only) towards loss of crops alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.01.05.2018 till its realization, also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
12.01.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
