Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

cc/58/2021

Jasbir Sangwan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Sandeep Sheoran

21 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No. 58 of 2021

                                                         Date of Institution:   2.3.2021

                                                          Date of Decision:     21.08.2024     

 

Jasbir Sangwan son of Raj Kumar Sangwan, resident of village Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri.

 

                                                                   ….Complainant.

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Bajaj Allianz House, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune- 411006 (Maharashtra).

 

                                                                                     …....OP/Respondent

                   COMPLAINT UNDER THE

                   CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

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

                   Hon’ble Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Present:      Sh. Sandeep Sheoran, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh. Rajender Verma, Adv. for OP.

 

ORDER:-

 

                  Shri Jasbir Sangwan (hereinafter referred to as “complainant”) has filed the present complaint against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as “OP”) with the averments that he cultivated the insured cotton crop in agricultural land, situated in revenue estate of village Charkhi, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri, detail of which is given in para No. 3 of the present complaint. It is averred that he got insured his cotton crop of Kharif 2020 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna vide policy/Receipt No. 0401062000407576527 and insurance premium amount of Rs. 1712.44 ps was debited from the complainant’s account No. 82760100009674 maintained with Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Charkhi, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri. It is averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, insured cotton crop was damaged and report of the damage was issued by Block Agricultural officer, Dadri-II. It is averred that the complainant run from pillar to post to get the compensation of the damaged crop, but the OP did not pay any compensation to the complainant. As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant seeks directions against the OP to grant claim of damaged crop to the tune of Rs. 34,248.9 ps along with interest, compensation and the litigation expenses besides any other relief which this Commission may found deem fit and proper.

2.            Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed their written statement. In its written statement, the OP took some preliminary objections that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Commission and the complaint is liable to be dismissed etc. It is also averred that as per clause No. 17.7.4, Insurance company retains the right to accept or reject insurance proposal (s) within 15 days/30 days of receipt of proposal/application for loanee/non loanee respectively, in case proposal/application is incomplete, not accompanied by necessary documentary proof, Aadhaar Number or Aadhaar Enrolment Number/Slip or insurance premium the proposal/application will be rejected and the insurance company will fully refund the collected premium to the proposer/applicant. Accordingly, an automated message is sent to the mobile number provided by the customer, to submit proper requirement documents within 15 days at the CSC Centre. It is averred that the application submitted by the complainant was rejected because the farmer the farmer name not found in Jamabandi and the name of the village is not written and thus the application of the complainant was rejected and hence, premium received by the insurance company was refunded to the complainant on 24.12.2020. Hence it is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complainant is not entitled for any claim. Accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought by the OP.

3.             In the evidence, the counsel for the complainant has tendered documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-5 on 18.5.2022 and remaining evidence after tendering affidavit Ex.CW1/A and closed the evidence on 26.07.2022.

                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP  made a statement that written statement filed be read as evidence and closed the evidence on 01.12.2023.

4.             We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the entire evidence placed on record by the parties very carefully and minutely.

        During the course of arguments, the learned counsel of complainant reiterated the contents of complaint filed by the complainant and the learned counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of their written statement and drawn the attention of this Commission towards the documents so placed on record by the parties.

5.             We have observed that the complainant by filing his affidavit (Ex.CW-1/A), has corroborated the contents of his complaint as true and correct and drawn the attention of this Commission towards document (Ex. C-1) wherein the name of complainant Jasbir Sangwan son of Sh. Raj Kmar Sangwan is mentioned as per jamabandi for the year 2018-19 situated in revenue estate of village Charkhi, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri. So, the contention raised by the OP in their written statement that the application submitted by the complainant was rejected because the farmer name not found in Jamabandi and the name of the village is not written, is wrong and illegal.

                In this connection Clause 16 (xxix) pertaining to  “Role of insurance companies” of the notification no.1408-Agri-II(1)-2019/7280 dated 24.05.2019 issued by Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, Haryana is reproduced below:-

          “The insurance Company shall verify the date of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of the cutoff date and in case of any correction must report to the state government failing which no objection by the insurance company at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the insurance company to pay the claim.”

Hence, the OP (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.) cannot be absolved from responsibility of verifying the credentials of the farmer.

 Moreover, sowing certificate issued by Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Charkhi (Ex. C1(A) also makes clear this fact that complainant Jasbir Sangwan had sown 8 Kanal and 4 Marla cotton crop which was duly insured by the OP vide CSC application (Ex. C-2) for Rs. 34,248.9 ps after getting premium of govt. share Rs. 3082.4 ps and farmer share as Rs. 1712.44 ps.

6.              In order to prove the contents of complaint that the complainant suffered losses of cotton crop, the learned counsel for complainant has placed on record Assessment Report duly issued by the Block Agriculture Officer, Dadri-II wherein on form No. 3 of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojna, it was certified by the authority in report that the complainant suffered losses of cotton crop of 0.6 hectare land upto 60% of cotton crop due to Inundation.

7.                On perusal of above documents, it stands established that the complainant suffered 60% loss of cotton crop of 0.6 hectare land of cotton crop, which was insured by the OP under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana for Rs. 34,248.9 ps and the same was destroyed due to some calamity/Inundation but the OP wrongly and illegally refunded the amount of premium in the bank account of complainant on 24.12.2020 as per written statement submitted on behalf of OP. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant applied for insurance of cotton crop but the OP refunded the amount to the complainant on 24.12.2020.

8.              We have observed that the OP has tried to prove that application submitted by the complainant through CSC on 24.7.2020 was rejected but failed to place on record any evidence in support of their case that on the basis of which document, the OP rejected the claim of complainant. Merely mentioning in the written statement by the OP that they have rejected the application mentioning that farmers name found in Jamabandi and name of the village not written, is not sufficient to prove their case because the land record produced by the complainant before this Commission i.e. jamabandi for the year 2018-19 (Ex. C-1) clearly shows that the name of complainant is mentioned in the said land record (Ex. C-1) and the other record proves that the complainant Jasbir Sangwan had sown the said cotton crop.

9.             In view of aforesaid discussion and findings, we are of the considered view that there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP who wrongly and illegally rejected the crop insurance application of complainant without any justified reason and refunded the amount of premium into the account of complainant. Therefore, we are of the considered view that due to this carelessness, negligent and deficient act on the part of OP, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment as well financial losses. We therefore allow the complaint and direct the OP as under:-

1. To grant compensation of Rs. 20,549/- being 60% of sum insured (Rs.34,248.9) and pay Rs. 18,837/- after reducing Rs. 1712.44/- already paid on 24.12.2020 as refund of insurance premium to the complainant along with an interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 2.3.2021 till its final payment.
2. To pay Rs. 1100/- (Rs. One Thousand One Hundred Only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.

10.       The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of this order failing which further interest @ 9% will be paid by the OP for the delayed period.

11.           Certified copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs.

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