Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/418/2019

Bharat Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Naresh Soni

20 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHABAD.

                                                      Complaint Case No.418  of 2019.                                                               Date of institution: 09.10.2019.                                                         Date of decision:20.03.2023.

Bharat Singh son of Shri Net Ram son of Mukhram resident of village Banmandauri  Sub Tehsil Bhattu Kalan  District Fatehabad .

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited SCO, No.156 to 159 Second Floor, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
2. SBI, Bank Anaj Mandi, village Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.
3. The Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Fatehabad.

                                                                   ...Opposite parties.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

Present:          Sh. Naresh Soni, Advocate, for the complainant.                                                            Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for  Op No.1.                                                                  Sh.Sanjeev Mehta, Advocate for Op No.2.                                                              Sh.Sanjay, AR 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 an agriculturist by profession and is owner in possession of 36 kanal agriculture land situated at Village Mehuwala Tehsil & District Fatehabad; that the complainant has an account No.35367940277 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.2 by deducting an amount of Rs.2541/-  in the name of ‘Crop Insurance’ from the account of complainant; that the complainant had sown cotton crop on the land in question but due to heavy rainfall and hailstorm the standing cotton crop got damaged; that 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 the claim for damaged crops has not been paid by the Ops, due to which complainant has suffered great financial losses. In the end, prayer has been made for allowing compensation for lost crops in sum of Rs.1,08,000/-. Rs.50,000/- and Rs.11000/- have also been claimed towards mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. Any other relief at the discretion of this Commission also sought.

2.                           On notice, Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. OP No.1 filed the written version raising preliminary objections that as per averments of the complaint, the loss of cotton crop has been affected in Village Mehuwala District Fatehabad, due to Heavy Rain Fall and hailstorm but regarding this no intimation was ever given to it; that as per record, provided by the bank, the crop of cotton standing on the land of the farmer situated at village Banmandauri was insured but as per the complainant the crop standing on land situated in village Mehuwala was insured, therefore, insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant himself or bank of complainant or other institutions that are part of this scheme.  The complainant never intimated any claim to insurance company for loss of cotton crop and thus, concocted story of claim of complainant cannot be believed in the absence of credible evidence of loss of crop and proof of timely intimation of claim.  Merely, allegation of claim intimation is not enough to establish that loss had actually occurred.   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.

3.                          In the reply filed on behalf of Op No.2, it has been averred, inter-alia, that this complaint is wrong against law; that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint and the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. It has been further submitted that an amount of Rs.2541/- was debited on 29.07.2017 on account of premium of insured kharif (cotton) crop, 2017 and was transferred in the account of Op No.1/insurance company; that the necessary miscellaneous correction with regard to the record was also sent to the insurance company for getting the needful done; that the premium of insurance was accepted and retained by the insurance company and is still lying with it, 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.

4.                          Op No.3 in its reply has submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable and he has no cause of action to file the present complaint.  It has been further submitted that the complainant has never given any application for the inspection of his field and even the insurance of the crop has also not been done with the answering OP. Other contentions 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 Annexure CW1/A, alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C7 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                          Learned counsel for the complainant also filed the rejoinder/replication to the written statement filed on behalf of Ops No.1 & 2 wherein the contents mentioned in the complaint have been reiterated and the contentions raised in the written statements have been controverted.

7.                          On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Saurav Khullar, Senior Legal Officer Annexure R1 and documents Annexure-R2 to Annexure R4, whereas OP No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Ganesh Pareek Deputy Manager as Ex.RW1/A, and documents Annexure R5 & Annexure R6  and Op No.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Rajesh Sihag, Deputy Director Annexure R2 and document Annexure R3 and Annexure R4. Thereafter the evidence on behalf of the Ops was closed.

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

9.                          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 Mehuwala, for which the claim has been sought by the complainant, was not insured because as per the record of the bank/Op no.2 the land of village Bandamandauri was insured. 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.2/bank has submitted that report with regard to necessary miscellaneous correction was sent to the insurance company.  Perusal of the case file reveals that there is nothing on the record to show that the OP No.2/bank has ever sent any report with regard to correction in the name of village. There are sufficient material available on the case file to show that the Op No.1 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 R2 (claim summary). In the given facts and circumstances of this case, the Op No.1 only is found liable to pay claim amount for the damages to the cotton crop of complainant for Kharif 2017.

10.                        Perusal of the case file reveals that the Op No.3/Agriculture Department has placed on record yield loss report wherein loss to the tune of Rs.13978.47/- per acre has been shown qua the village Mehuwala where the land of complainant falls.     

11.                        Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.1-insurance company to pay Rs.62903/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 30 days from today.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted with cost.  In the present case, respondent No.1-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 Mehuwala while negligently, the officials of bank/OP No.2 have given wrong name of the area to be Banmandauri.  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 complaint against Op No.3 stands dismissed.           

12.                        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: 20.03.2023

                                                                                                        

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