Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/184/2021

Shri Umed Singh Bhardwaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Shyam Sunder Bhardwaj

11 Dec 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.   

 

                                                Complaint No.         184 of 2021.                                                                          Date of Institution:  09.08.2021

                                                Date of order:           11.12.2024      

 

Shri Umed Singh Bhardwaj son of Sh. Bakhtawar Singh, resident of Santor, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri.

..Complainant.

                                                VERSUS

1.Bajaj Allianz house, old Airport Road, Yerwada Pune through its Managing Director.

2.Respondent Nishant Mahajan, State Head, Bajaj Allianz, S.C.O. Respondent 156-159, Sector 9-C, Near Matka Chowk,Chandigarh, through its Manager.

3.OBC Bank Branch Office now it convert in Punjab National Bank, Branch Office at Rohtak Road Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri, through its Manager.

                                                                 ..Opposite parties.

          COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,

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

                   (Proceeded under Section 64 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019).

 

Argued by: Sh. Shyam Sunder Bhardwaj, Adv. for complainant.

                    Sh. Rahul Sheoran, Adv. for OP no.1&2.

                    Sh. Sunil Dureja, Adv. for OP no.3.

 

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 Credit Card account with respondent no.3 bearing account No.01225111003095. The complainant had insured its cotton crop under the scheme of PMFBY through Bajaj Allianz Company vide policy No.04010620104118175901.

          In this regard a premium of Rs. 7425/- on dated 30.07.2020 was duly debited from the account No.01225111003095 of the complainant.

          It is alleged that the kharif season 2020 crop of complainant and the other villager got fully damaged. The complainant had cultivated a cotton crop in five acre, which was damaged due to heavy rainfall and furtherance fungus infection disease. The crop was insured for providing financial support of farmer suffering crop loss/damages arising out of unforeseen events. But the complainant did not get proper claims regarding damages of his Kharif 2020 crop. Complainant got claims of (Rs. 9725+Rs.63000/-) instead of 1,53,600/-. According to the terms and conditions of the policy the company would pay Rs. 76,800/- per hectare i.e. 76800/- X 2= Rs.1,53,600/-. The complainant has fulfilled the entire document and other information to respondent in order to get the claims of his damaged 2020 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 10.02.2021, but the respondent did not take any action on the request of the complainant but a formal amount was transferred, which was not proper according to the loss of cotton crop. The complainant has visited the office of the OPs and requested them to reimburse 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. 1,53,600/- as insurance claim as 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.                OP no.3 is a bank through whom payments were routed and is performa defendant only. Claim is against OP no.1&2 who is insurance company

                   The OP no.1&2 in written statement has submitted that the policy bearing number OG-21-1207-5015-00009618 was issued for cotton crop by the answering respondent under the operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. It is further submitted that complainant has not come with clean hands and have suppressed the true and material facts.

The insurance company received the claim intimation and survey was conducted and it was found that the localized claim is payable and it was found that there yield loss/shortfall in the crop. However, localized claim and yield claim are paid to the complainant through bank. Thus, answering respondent has already paid the  claim amount of Rs. 9785/- with UTR No. N001211357749375, dated 01.01.2021 for localize claim and Rs.64383/- with UTR No. N0416211408286625 dated 16.02.2021 for yield claim  to the claimant/complainant in full and final settlement of the claim.

 The claim of the claimant with regard to damage of the insured crop has already been paid. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

                   The OP no.3 in written statement has submitted that he took the insurance policy from OP no.1&2 under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna and a sum of Rs. 7425 was debited in his account on 30.07.2020 on account of payment of premium. The answering respondent has nothing to do with the assessment and payment of claim/compensation. However, on the basis of claim lodged by the complainant on account of damage to his crop the insurance company sanctioned a claim Rs. 9785/- and Rs. 64383/- which was credited in KCC limit account. In view of the above there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.3 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua OP no.3.

3.                Both the parties in support of their respective averments tendered in documentary evidence their respective affidavits/averments and adduced certain documents.  Reference of relevant record shall be given in this order. 

4.                 We have heard both the counsel for parties and gone through the case file thoroughly and after hearing the rival contentions of both the parties, we are of the convinced view that the present complaint has no merits and the same deserves dismissal, for the reasons mentioned hereinafter.

5.                During arguments, counsel for OP no.1&2 tendered document Annexure R1 proforma -3- crop Loss Assessment Report under PMFBY wherein sown area for cotton crop and affected area has been mentioned as 1.9 hectare and 1.0 hectare respectively and expected loss as 20%. The said proforma has been signed by the complainant, Loss Assessor and Block Agriculture Officer. The complainant has not submitted any documents mentioning percentage of loss occurred in the crop.

6.                In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has got insured his crop from OP no.1&2.  The OP no.3 has also admitted that Rs.7425/- were debited from the complainant account and the same were remitted to OP no.1&2 as premium of crop insurance.

7.                The complainant by way of present complaint has claimed Rs.1,53,600/- from the OPs as compensation on account of loss of crop, on account of rendering deficient services, for causing mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

                   Now the main question arises for consideration before this Commission is whether the complainant is entitled to get any amount from the OPs or not?

8.                We have perused the contents of the complaint very carefully. The complainant has moved an application Ex.C9(B) before the Deputy Director Agriculture Office, Charkhi Dadri but in this application, the complainant has not mentioned as to how much loss he has suffered due to damage of crop.

9.                No photograph has been placed on record by the complainant in support of his case. The counsel for the OP no.1&2 placed on record assessment report which was attested by Block Agriculture Officer and assessed the loss of crop was 20% Annexure R1. As per written version, the claim of the complainant with regard to damage of insured crop has already been paid by OP no.1&2.  The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs, thus, onus heavily lies on the complainant to prove his case against the OPs by leading cogent, convincing and concrete evidence which the complainant has failed to produce any document in regard to loss of crop to the extent of more than 20%.  Thus, in the facts and circumstances as discussed above, we hold that the present complaint has no merit and the same deserves dismissal.

10.              With these findings, the present complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

11.             This order be communicated to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.