Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/259/2018

Dalip - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Sukhbir Dhaka

22 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.259 of 2018.                                                              Date of Instt.:  11.09.2018.                                                                        Date of Decision: 22.08.2023.

Dalip son of Sahi Ram resident of  Bhuthan Kalan Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

 

1.Area Manager, Agri Business Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.150-156, Sector  9-C, Madhya  Marg, Chandigarh.

2.State Bank of India, Branch Bhirdana, Tehsil & District Fatehabad, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                  Sh.Sukhbir Dhaka, Advocate for complainant.                                         Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                                   Sh.Sanjiv Mehta, Advocate for Op No.2.        

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

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                    Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is owner in possession of land situated at Village Bhuthan Kalan Tehsil & District Fatehabad, the detail of which is mentioned in para No.2 of the complaint; that the complainant had sown cotton crops/kharif crops on the land in question and had also availed Kisan Credit Card (KCC) facility with account No.65210625147; that the complainant got the standing crop insured under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the Op No.1 on 29.07.2017 and in this regard an amount of Rs.3001.50/- was debited from his account by Op No.2 as premium of the insurance in question, which was credited in the account of Op No.1; that due to bad weather, the cotton crop of the complainant got damaged and complainant intimated agriculture department/Ops to inspect the loss suffered; that the losses were assessed Rs.38,587/- 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. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

2.                Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately.  Op No.1 filed its separate reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action and locus standi etc. It has been further submitted that the land of the complainant  falls within the area of village Bhuthan Kalan but as per the record the farmer had insured the area of land which falls within the area of village Nadhauri; that there is no shortfall of yield in the above notified area, 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.  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.                          OP No.2 in its reply has taken several preliminary objections such as cause of action, locus standi and maintainability etc. It has been further submitted that an amount of Rs.5,11,451.46/- of 214 farmers for insurance of kharif crops 2017 under PMFBY was  paid to the OP No.1 on 31.07.2017 vide UTR No. SBIN8172120008106 including the amount of Rs.3001.50 of the complainant and the amount is still lying with Op No.1/insurance company, therefore, the insurance company being the insurer of the crop is liable to indemnify the loss. There is no deficiency in service on the part of bank. 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.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Annexure C1 alongwith documents Anneuxre-C2 to Annexure-C6 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

 5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Smt.Sarpreet Kaur, Assistant Manager Legal as Annexure R1 with documents Annexure R2 to Annexure R6 whereas learned counsel for the Op No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Manager as Annexure R7 alongwith documents Annexure R8 to Annexure R11. Thereafter, the evidence of the Ops was closed.

6.                          We have heard oral final arguments from both sides and perused the case file minutely.

7.                          The grievance of the complainant is that his cotton crop for the Khariff, 2017 season was damaged due to bad weather but he has not received any insurance claim till today. The complainant in order to prove his case has placed on file copy of jamabandi for the year 2014-15 as Annexure C5. The complainant has also placed on record copy of statement of account Annexure C4, from which it is proved on record that on 29.07.2017, an amount of Rs.3001.50/- was deducted from his account by op No.2 as insurance premium for insuring the cotton crop of kharif 2017 with op no.1. 

8.                          Undisputedly, the insurance premium for insuring the cotton crop of the complainant was debited by the Op No.1 and was remitted to Op No.2. However, the insurance company has come with the plea that the crop sown at village Bhuthan 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 Nadhauri 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. As per the revenue record the land of the complainant falls within the area of village Bhuthan Kalan and the complainant has specifically mentioned in his compliant that the crop standing the land of village Bhuthan Kalan got damaged due to bad weather. 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 R2 (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.

8.                          The Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.38587.78/- per hectare to the cotton crop in village Bhuthan Kalan as is evident in Annexure C2 where the land of complainant falls and as per record the complainant has suffered a loss in the land 2.02 hectare.   

9.                          Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.1-insurance company to pay Rs.77947/- (in round figure) 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 cost.  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 Bhuthan Kalan while negligently; the officials of bank/OP No.2 have given wrong name of the area to be Naudhari.  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.           

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: 22.08.2023

                                                                                                        

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