Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/293/2018

Hanuman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

S.C Jayani

06 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.293 of 2018.                                                              Date of Instt.: 26.09.2018.                                                                         Date of Decision: 06.06.2023

Hanuman son of Banwari son of Moman resident of village Bhuthan Kalan District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited GE Plaza Air Port Road Yarvada Pune 411006 registered number 113 through its Managing Director/General Manager.

2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Kamla Nagar, Kamla Palace Red Square Market, Hisar District Hisar.

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

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                   Sh.S.C.Jyani, Advocate for complainant.                                                  Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.1 & 2.                                                  Sh.Sanjeev Mehta, Advocate for Op No.3.                      

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

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                     Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is owner in possession of land as mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint situated at Village Bhuthan Tehsil & District Fatehabad. It is alleged that the complainant had sown cotton crops on the land in question and had also availed Kisan Credit Card (KCC) facility with account No.32247408182; that the complainant got the standing cotton crop insured with the Ops No.1 & 2 on 29.07.2017 and in this regard an amount of Rs.1780.20/- was debited from his account by Op No.3 as premium of the insurance in question, which was credited in the account of Ops No.1 & 2; that the sown cotton crop of the complainant got damaged and all the nearby field farmers have already received the compensation on account of lost crop; that the Ops No.1 & 2 being insurer of the crop is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant on loss of crop suffered by the complainant; that the losses were assessed Rs.24,000/- per acre; that despite several requests, the claim for lost 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. Hence, this complaint.

2.                          Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately.

3.                          Ops No.1 & 2 filed its joint reply wherein it has been submitted that as per the complaint, loss of cotton crop has been effected but the complainant has not given any intimation for claim within 48 hours as per operational guidelines, therefore, due to this further process such as survey of damaged field could not be conducted as localized claim is not payable in the absence of any claim; that as per the terms and conditions of scheme, the complainant should have approached to DAC & FW department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and the decision of the said department would be binding on all state Government/Insurance company/ Banks and farmers but instead of approaching the said department, the complainant has filed the present complaint; that there is no privity of contract amongst the complainant and replying Ops, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. Preliminary objections such as cause of action, concealment of material facts and jurisdiction etc. have also been taken. Other contentions of the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

                             Op No.3 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to suppression of material facts, cause of action, maintainability and jurisdiction; that an amount of Rs.9,54,575/- of 344 farms for insurance of  kharif crops 2017 was paid to Ops No.1 & 2 on 31.07.2017 vide UTR No.SBIN717212939996 which includes the amount of Rs.1780.20 of the complainant also; that the premium was accepted by the Ops No.1 & 2. It has been further submitted that Op No.1 accepted the premium amount and retained the same with it for 11 months but when the crops got damages, all of sudden the entire premium amount of 124 farmers were returned and created in BGL Account of the bank called Crop Insurance Claims received account without any reference or correspondence with the answering Op. 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 complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.PW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C11.

5.                          On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of tendered affidavit of Jai Singh, Senior Executive, Legal Annexure R1 and documents Annexure-R2 & Annexure R3, whereas OP No.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Sunil Kumar, Branch Manager Annexure R1/A with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.

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

7.                          Undisputedly, the complainant is the consumer of the Op No.3, as is evident through photo copy of statement of account placed on case file as Annexure C1. It has been argued by learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant had sown ‘cotton’ crops in his land, which was duly insured, under PMFBY with OPs No.1 & 2, but when his crop got damaged, no compensation on account of insured crop was given to them despite the fact that he had completed all the formalities with regard to compensation of damaged cotton crop.

8.                          The complainant in his complaint has mentioned that his cotton crop got damaged but despite it being insured, the Ops did not make the compensation as per the insurance policy and due to inaction on the part of Ops he has suffered mental agony, harassment besides financial loss. OP No.3 in its written statement has mentioned that Ops No.1 & 2 had accepted the premium amount and retained the same with it for 11 months but when the crops got   damages, all of sudden the entire premium amount of 124 farmers were returned and created in BGL Account of the bank called Crop Insurance Claims received account without any reference or correspondence with the answering Op.

9.                          The complainant has alleged that his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 season was damaged and the concerned department had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.24,000/- per hectare but in the report made by concerned Agriculture Department  the loss has been assessed to the tune of Rs.15622/- per acre. Ops No.1 & 2  have not led any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that there was no damage to the crop of cotton of Kharif, 2017 in village Bhuthan Kalan including the crop of complainant and other farmers.  There is nothing on the file to show that the complainant had ever intimated about the loss to the Ops within stipulated period as per the guidelines of the government with regard to loss of crop, therefore, localized claim has been rejected.

10.                        Undisputedly, the insurance company had accepted the payment qua insurance premium of crop and as per Op No.3/bank the Ops No.1 & 2 had retained the insurance premium with them for 11 months but when the crops got damages, all of sudden the entire premium amount of 124 farmers were returned and created in BGL Account of the bank called Crop Insurance Claims received account without any reference or correspondence with the answering Op.

11.                        As per document Annexure 5 the complainant had sown cotton crop in 1.29 hectare which comes to 3.18 acre.  The concerned department had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.15622/- per acre.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for the compensation to the tune of Rs.49776/-( in round figure) for loss of cotton crop in 3.18 acre i.e. (15622 x 3.18).

12.                        Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against Ops No.1 & 2/insurance company to pay an amount of Rs.49776/- (Rs.Forty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Six only) alongwith simple interest @ 6 % per annum to the complainant from the date of filing of this complaint till actual payment. The Ops No.1 & 2/insurance company are also directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.11,000/- (Rs.Eleven Thousand) towards compensation for harassment and mental agony etc. suffered by the complainant as well as for litigation expenses. The order be complied within a period of 45 days from today, failing which the entire amount would carry simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual payment.  In the given facts and circumstances of this case, no deficiency is found on the part of OP no. 3/bank, therefore, complaint against Op No.3 stands dismissed.  However, the Op No.3/bank is directed to return the amount of Rs.1780.20/- to the insurance company within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this order.

13.                        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. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission, as per rules, for perusal of parties herein. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:                                                            Dated:06.06.2023                                                                                                  

                                                          (Harisha Mehta)                (Rajbir Singh)                                                                                       Member                              President