Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/265/2018

Jai Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Sukhbir Dhaka

20 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.265 of 2018.                                                              Date of Instt.:  13.09.2018.                                                                        Date of Decision: 20.04.2023

Jai Singh son of Ram Karan resident of Dhanger 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.Central Bank of India, Branch G.T.Road, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabd 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.M.K.Dharnia, Advocate for Op No.2.   

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                  SH.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 Dhanger Tehsil & District Fatehabad; 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.2990085710; that the complainant got the standing crop insured under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the Op No.1 and in this regard an amount of Rs.1117/- 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 the cotton crop of the complainant got damaged;  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; that the concerned department has assessed the loss of crop to the tune of Rs.52009/- in village Dhanger. In the end, prayer has been made for allowing compensation for lost crops in sum of Rs.41,600/- alongwith interest @ 24 % per annum. Rs.20,000/- have also been claimed towards mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

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 averred that the present complaint before this Commission is not maintainable because  except localized claims, all other perils were to be finalized by government agencies and  the complainant should have approached DAC & FW Department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and decision of said department would have been binding on State Government/Insurance Company/Banks/farmers but instead of that the complainants had approached the District Consumer Commission (earlier Consumer Forum) with malafide intention by violating standard terms and conditions of the scheme. Further, the complainant had never given any intimation to the insurance company regarding any loss despite the fact that there is a condition for immediate intimation of claim within 48 hours of loss. It has been further averred that no proof of loss or weather report has been submitted with insurance company by the complainant and even quantification of loss cannot be determined in absence of necessary survey and there is no privity of contract between complainants and insurance company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of insurance company.  Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.     

3.                          In the reply filed on behalf of Op No.2 several preliminary objections such as cause of action, locus standi, maintainability, jurisdiction and concealment of material facts have been taken. It has been further submitted that the complainant should have approached to DAC & FC Department for any kind of grievances related to the scheme or claim but the complainant has filed the present complaint by concealing the material facts; that an amount of Rs.1117/- on 26.07.2017 was debited from the bank account of the complainant for premium of cotton crops and was remitted to the OP No.2 vide UTR No.CBINH17212166819 on 01.08.2018 for premium of  PMFBY; that the complainant had not submitted his aadhar card to the bank despite repeated requests and the insurance company returned the amount to the bank is was deposited in the account of the complainant besides depositing the PMFBY claim of rs.2515 on 18.11.2017. 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 Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

 5.                          On the other hand, learned counsel for Op No.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Jai Singh as Annexure RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R6. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Salender Bishnoi, Manger as Annexure R7 alongwith documents Annexure R8 to Annexure R13 and its evidence was closed. Thereafter, Ops evidence 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 got damaged 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 2015-16 as Ex.C2 and copies of khasra girdwaris for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C3. The complainant has also placed on record copy of statement of account Ex.C1, from which it is proved on record that on 26.07.2017, an amount of Rs.1117/- 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.                          OP No.2 in its written statement an amount of Rs.1117/- on 26.07.2017 was debited from the bank account of the complainant for premium of cotton crops and was remitted to the OP No.1 vide UTR No.CBINH17212166819 on 01.08.2018 for premium of  PMFBY and when the complainant did not submit his aadhar card to the bank despite repeated requests and the insurance company returned the amount to the bank is was deposited in the account of the complainant besides the claim of PMFBY to the tune of  rs.2515/- on 18.11.2017.  

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.52009.06 per hectare in village Dhanger for loss of cotton crop (Annexure C4).  

10.                        Though the complainant has alleged that the  Ops have not paid  any amount on account of loss  of crop but perusal of Ex.C1 reveals that an amount of Rs.2515/-  has already been paid to the complainant on account of claim under PMFBY but this is very meagre amount. Moreover, the Ops have   not placed on file any record to show that as to on what method this figure has been  calculated as loss of  crop. So, the OP no.1 is found deficient in service and is also found involved in unfair trade practice. 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 season.  

11.                        Perusal of the case file reveals that the complainant has suffered loss of sown crop in 16 kanal (2 acres) and the concerned Agriculture Department has assessed the yield loss to the tune of Rs.52009.06 per hectare (Rs.21056/- per acre in round figure), therefore, it would be just and proper to give compensation to the complainant as assessed by the concerned agriculture department in its report.

12.                        Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against OP No.1 with a direction as follows:

(1)                        To pay an amount of Rs.42112/- (in round figure) as insurance claim amount on account of loss to the complainant for the damages of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017, sown by him in 2 acres.

(2)                        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 amount mentioned at Sr. No. (1) would carry simple interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the compliant till actual payment.  The order be complied within a period of 45 days from today, failing which the entire amount mentioned at Sr. Nos. (1) & (2) above would carry simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.  In the given facts and circumstances of this case, no deficiency is found on the part of OP no. 2, therefore, complaint against Op No.2 stands dismissed.  However, the Op No.1 is directed to make the payment of awarded amount after deducting the amount which has already been  given and credited in the account of the complainant on 18.11.2017 on account of PMFBY claim.

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: 20.04.2023

 

                                                                                                        

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