Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/139/2019

Baljeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Rajeev Godara

11 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHABAD.

                                                      Complaint Case No.139 of 2019.                                                                Date of institution:08.04.2019.                                                          Date of decision: 11.01.2024.

Baljeet Singh son of Tula Ram resident of village Jandli Kalan Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited SCO, No.150 to 156 second floor, Sector-9C, Chandigarh.
2. Punjab National Bank, Branch Gorakhpur Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.
3. Deputy Director Agriculture, Mini Secretariat Phase-II, Fatehabad through its authorized officer.

                                                                   ...Opposite parties.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

Present:          Sh.Rajiv Godara, Advocate, for the complainant.                                         Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                             Sh.Inder Singh Sihag, Advocate for Op No.2.                                           Sh.Sanjay ASO on behalf of Op No.3.                            

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                  SH.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.    

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                    In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is  owner of agriculture land, situated at Village Jandli Kalan Tehsil & District Fatehabad, the details of which is mentioned in para No.1 in the compliant; that the complainant has also availed Kisan Credit Facility with the OP No.2; that Op No.2 had insured the crop of complainant under the Govt. scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” for the year 2017-2018 with the OP No.1 by deducting an amount of Rs.2841.20 on 19.07.2017/- in the name of ‘Crop Insurance’ from the account of complainant; that the sown crop of the complainant got damaged due to heavy rain and water logging and hailstorm, therefore, the complainant intimated agriculture department/Ops to inspect the loss suffered; that the losses were assessed Rs.24,000/- per hectare; that despite several requests and serving of legal notice, the claim for damaged crops has not been paid by the Ops, due to which complainants have suffered great financial losses. Hence, this complaint.

2.                           On notice, Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, locus standi, maintainability and suppression of material facts etc. It has been further submitted that the insured had insured his crop in village Gorakhpur and not in village Jandli Kalan and there is no short fall of yield in the above notified area as per the records, therefore, the insurance company being insurer is liable to indemnify the loss of crop, if any caused to farmer. Other contentions have also been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In the end, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          OP No.2 in its reply has raised preliminary objections such as cause of action, locus standi, maintainability and complaint has been filed by suppressing the material facts from this Commission.  It has been further submitted that an amount of Rs.2816.76 of cotton crop kharif 2017 with regard to 32 kanal of land at village Jandli Kalan was debited and remitted to the insurance company; that at the time of uploading the list of farmers on portal, the name of village Gorakhpur instead of Jandli Kalan was uploaded due to clerical mistake but the insurance company did not counter check; that being the insurer of the crop, the insurance company is liable to make the payment to the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of reply OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.  

4.                          OP No.3 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has never given any application for inspecting the crop      and no record of the complainant is available with the replying OP. Other contentions of the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.       

5.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C4. On the other hand, the Ops have tendered affidavit & documents, Ex.RW1/A, Annexure RW1/1 to Annexure RW1/4, Annexure R2/4 and Annexure R3/1.

6.                          We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.                          Undisputedly, the insurance premium for insuring the cotton crop of the complainant was debited by the Op No.2 and was remitted to Op No.1. However, the insurance company has come with the plea that the crop sown at village Jandli Kalan, for which the claim has been sought by the complainant, was not insured because as per the record of the bank/Op no.1 the land of village Gorakhpur was insured, therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable for any omission and negligence on the part of Bank. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance of case law titled as State Bank of India Versus Bijender Singh decided on 17.10.2023 by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Dehli in Revision Petition No.1777 of 2023. The complainant has not placed any document on the case file showing that he had ever given any intimation to the Ops with regard to crop loss as per operational guidelines, therefore, in the absence of any intimation, survey of the land in question could not be got conducted, hence, the localized claim is not payable to  the complainant. On the other hand, the Op No.1/bank has submitted that it was the duty of the insurance company to cross-check the details, if any remains any mistake and moreover due to being clerical mistake no deficiency in service can be attributed towards the bank.  There are sufficient material available on the case file to show that the Op No.1 (insurance company) is found deficient in service and is also found involved in unfair trade practice and the Op No.2/bank is also found negligent in sending the wrong name of the village to the insurance company as is evident through Annexure RW1/1 (Policy schedule) and Annexure RW1/2 (Proposal & Declaration Form). In the given facts and circumstances of this case, the Op No.1 (insurance company) only is found liable to pay claim amount for the damages to the cotton crop of complainant for Kharif 2017-18. The case law relied upon by learned counsel for the Op No.1 is not applicable to the case in hand; therefore, it is being distinguished because the premium is still lying with the insurance company.

8.                          Perusal of the case file reveals that the Op No.3/Agriculture Department has placed on record yield loss report Annexure R3/1 wherein loss to the tune of Rs.18428/- per acre has been shown qua the village Jandli Kalan where the land of complainant falls and as per record the complainant has suffered a loss in the land 32 k(4 acre)   

9.                          Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.1-insurance company to pay Rs.73712/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days from today.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted with costs.  In the present case, respondent No.2-bank has given wrong name of the area in which land was under survey for the damage of crops.  The name of the area is actually Jandli Kalan while negligently, the officials of bank/OP No.2 have given wrong name of the area to be Gorakhpur.  So, cost of Rs.11,000/- is imposed on the bank/OP No.2 which shall be paid to the complainant.  The name of village be corrected in the record.   The case against Op No.3 stands dismissed.        

10.                        In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be 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 one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission.                                                                 Dated: 11.01.2024

                                                                                                        

(K.S.Nirania)                         (Harisha Mehta)                   (Rajbir Singh)                    Member                                      Member                                         President