Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/68/2021

Sunil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Rahul Kumar

25 Sep 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No. 68 of 2021

                                                         Date of Institution:  05.04.2021

                                                          Date of Decision:     25.09.2024               

 

Sunil Kumar, age 42 years, son of Sh. Mahender, resident of village Bilawal, Tehsil Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri.

 

                                                                   ….Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, 101,102,13, 2^nd Floor, Batra Building, Sector-17D, Chandigarh-160017 through Regional Manager.
2. Bank of India, Main Market, New Bus Stand, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri through its Branch Manager.
3.  Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Anaj Mandi, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri.
4. State of Haryana through Collector, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri

 

•  

 

                   COMPLAINT UNDER THE

                   CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

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

                   Hon’ble Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

 

Present:      Sh. Rahul Kumar, Adv. for complainant.

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

                   Sh. Karamvir Singh Chhikara, Adv. for OP no.2.

                   Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA on behalf of OP no.3&4.

 

ORDER:-

              

1.             Complainant (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) with the averments that he owns and possesses agriculture land, situated in the revenue state of village Bilawal, Tehsil Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri. It is averred that the complainant got insured his Cotton crop from the OP no.1 and accordingly, the OP no.1 issued Application No. 040106201041355202901 and policy no. OG-21-1207-5015-00008307. It is averred that the said crops of complainant were insured by the OP no.1 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY). It is averred that the crop of complainant got fully damaged due to the effect of ‘white fly’. The OP no.3 submit report in this regard on large scale  to OP no.1,2&4 and due to this OP no.1 issued compensation to the farmers of effected area and village of complainant Bilawal was also effected. Due to negligence of OP no.2, the village of the complainant was recorded as village Chhapar instead of Bilawal. Accordingly, OP no.1 did not pay the amount of crop loss.  It is further averred that this act amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the complainant seeks directions against the OPs to pay Rs. 1,50,000/-for his cotton crop along with interest, compensation and the litigation expenses.
2.             Upon notice, the OP No. 1 appeared and filed its written statement alleging therein that the complainant had got insured her agricultural land situated at village/notified area of village Chhapar (98), Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri vide policy No.OG-21-1207-5015-00008307 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, covering the crop season of Kharif 2020 for the cultivation of cotton and providing insurance cover at individual farm level to crop covering losses due to occurrence of localized perils/ calamities viz. landslide, hailstorm and inundation affecting part of a notified unit or a plot.  It is averred that As per report of survey agency there has been no loss in cotton crop in the year 2020 in village Chhapar

As per Clause no. 17.2 of revamped operational guidelines:-

Consolidated declaration/proposal formats to be submitted physically electronically by Nodal banks/Branches shall contain details about insurance unit, sum insured per unit, premium per unit, total area insured of the farmers, number and category of farmers covered (small and marginal or other) and number of farmers under other categories (SC/ST/others/Women) alongwith their bank account details etc. (bank/their branches). As per application form provided on the National Crop Insurance Portal, Banks are required to upload the insured farmers’ data mandatorily on the National Crop Insurance Portal. No other platform shall be used for uploading/submission of farmers’ data. Those farmers whose data is uploaded on the National Crop Insurance Portal shall only be eligible for insurance coverage and accordingly the premium subsidy will also be released.

 It is averred that as per localized claim, there was no intimation received for cotton crop by the answering OP and therefore, no survey was conducted to assess the loss, if any. As per the report, there was no damage in the cotton crop under notified “CHHAPAR (98), therefore, the claim was not payable. Moreover, it is averred that there was no shortfall in yield in the given in the season Kharif 2020 for cotton crop, so, no claims were paid. It is averred that the claimant has not suffered any loss, therefore, no such claim is made out and averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1.  It is averred that there stands no liability of the OP Company and the claim is not payable to the complainant. Accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought by the OP no.1.

3.             Upon notice, the OP no.2 i.e. Bank of India appeared and filed the written statement. In its written statement, the OP no.2 admitted that as per scheme of PMFBY, answering OP deducted the premium for insurance of the crop and remitted the same to the insurance company mentioning the correct name and address and village name of the complainants. The OP no.2 entered the correct data of complainant and submitted the same to the OP no.1 i.e. the insurance company viz. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. alongwith the premium amount deducted. It is averred that it is wrong that the answering OP mentioned the name of village of complainant as Chhapar in place of Bilawal. Answering OP mentioned the name of village of complainant Bilawal in the data submitted   to the OP no.1. If the village name was changed after submission of data to the portal of OP no.1 due to any technical fault then OP no.2 cannot be liable for that. As per policy scheme, insurance company send the message to the insured person on his mobile no. mentioning all the details such as name, village name, crop area etc. of the insured person for verification. It was the duty of insured to check the message and got the correction done, if any mistake found in the message. If OP no.1 has wrongly mentioned the name of village of complainant as Chhapar in place of Bilawal then OP no.2 cannot be made liable for that. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no.2. Accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought by the OP no.2. 
4. The OP no.3&4 appeared and filed its separate written statement and averred that the answering OP is a collaborator who has borne part amount of insurance premium as per notification of Haryana Government. It is averred that the complainant is not a consumer of OP no. 3&4, hence he cannot claim any amount from the answering OP no.3&4. The answering OP no.3&4 had sent the record to the OP no.1 after got preparing the report of loss to crops prepared by Joint Committee as per guidelines of PMFBY, after conducting survey. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP. Accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought by the qua OP no.3&4

5.                     The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence on dated 09.01.2023.

6.                     On the other hand, the Counsel for the OP no.1 has filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed the evidence on 04.10.2023.

7.                     The Counsel for the OP no.2 has filed affidavit Ex.RW2/A and closed the evidence on 04.10.2023.

8.                     Sh. Sushil Kumar, SA  made a statement on 02.11.2023 that written statement filed be read in his evidence and closed the evidence.

9.                     We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties.  All the documents have been perused 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 OPs reiterated the contents of their written statement and drawn the attention of this Commission towards the documents so placed on record by the parties.

10.                   We have observed that the complainant has not submitted any proof for loss of the crop.  The name of the village was wrongly mentioned as “Chhapar” instead of “Bilawal” in the system for insurance of the crop under PMFBY. The same may be ignored if the complainant could have submitted any document for loss occurred in crop during the crop season of Kharif 2020. However, the OP further mentioned in their written statement that no intimation was received by them for damage of cotton crop from the complainant. Hence, no survey was conducted to assess the loss. On perusal of case file, we have also observed that the complainant has not placed on record any documentary evidence to controvert/negate the averments of OPs in regard to any intimation of loss was ever given by the complainant to the OP no.1 (insurance company) at any point of time. Moreover, the complainant has also failed to place on record Loss Assessment Report, if any, duly issued by any competent authority of Agriculture Department.

11.                    Further as per contents of written statement submitted by the OP no.1, there was no damage in cotton crop under notified area Chhapar (98). Hence, the claim was not payable to the complainant.  We have observed that the complainant failed to file any replication of the said written statement filed by the OP no.1. If he had any objection in this regard and further failed to place on record any documentary evidence showing that any damage/shortfall took place in the crop in his village viz “Bilawal” area. So, in the absence of any authentic documentary evidence/proof of loss from the side of complainant, we are not sure whether there was any loss to his crop. When the name of the village was wrong/credentials of the complainant does not matches the crop remained uninsured. Hence, the OP no.1 is not supposed to retain the insurance premium and the same should have been refunded  when it was noticed.

12.                   On perusal of written statement of the OP no.1 (insurance company), the onus of the mistake of mentioning name of the village wrongly was passed on the Bank (OP no.1). However, the insurance company is also required to verify the data of insured farmer provided by the Bank. 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 no.1 (Bajaj Allianz Genera Insurance Company Ltd.) cannot be  absolved from responsibility of verifying the credentials of the farmer.

13.                   However, in the present case, the said guidelines have become secondary and this commission’s primary concern is now, whether any loss had occurred to the crop as the complainant has not submitted any proof for loss of the crop. In view of above discussion and observations, we are unable to believe loss of the crop in the absence of any documentary evidence suffered by the complainant for his crop in village Bilawal. However, we find that there is a deficiency in service in regard to non verification of credentials and retaining of insurance premium on the part of the OPs, for insurance of the crop in village Chhapar wrongly mentioned while correct name of the village is Bilawal.

14.                   The OP no.1, insurance company has regretted the claim on the ground that there was no loss of crop in the village “Chhapar” and on the other hand OP no.2 has averred that name of the village was wrong mentioned due to mistake on the part of insurance company. It means the crop of the complainant was left uninsured. Hence, the insurance premium paid by the complainant for Rs. 8,250/- and there paid by the State Government and Central Government should be refunded to respective person/Governments by the OP no.1. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the present complaint is partially allowed and the insurance company vz. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP no.1) is directed as under:-

1. To refund insurance premium for Rs. 8250/- to the complainant and also share of State Government and Central Government alongwith interest @9% from the date of filing of complaint i.e.05.04.2021 till  the amount is refunded/paid  as the crop of the complainant left uninsured because of mistake of OP no.1.
2. To pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony and Rs. 3000/- as litigation expenses.

15.                   The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of this order failing which further interest @12% will be paid by the OP no.1 for the delayed period.

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

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