Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/24/2019

Krishan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Devender Kaswan

07 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.24 of 2019.                                                                Date of Instt:07.01.2019.                                                                                   Date of Decision: 07.06.2023

Krishan son of Sher Singh son of Girdhari resident of village Chandrawal Sub Tehsil Bhuna District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited SCO No.150-156, Sector 9 Madhya Marg Chandigarh through its authorised signatory.

2. State Bank of India Branch Nadhauri Tehsil Bhuna & District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                   Sh.Devender Kaswan, Advocate for complainant.                                              Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                         Sh.Sanjeev Mehta, Advocate for Op No.2.                             

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 Chandrawal Sub Tehsil Bhuna 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.65186958570 from Op No.2; that the complainant got the standing cotton crop insured with the Ops No.1 and in this regard an amount of Rs.2953.20/- 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 due to heavy rain fall, hailstorm and due to natural calamities; that the losses were assessed Rs.54057.56/- per acre by the concerned authorities; that the Op No.1 being insurer of the crop is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant on loss of crop suffered by the complainant; 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.                          On notice, Ops appeared. OP No.1 filed its reply wherein it has been submitted that as per the complaint, loss of cotton crop has been effected but the complainant has not any intimation for claim 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 record available with the replying Ops, there was no shortfall of yield in the notified area insured as per the information  submitted by the bank; that insurance is a contract between the parties and both the parties are under obligation to obey/fulfil all terms and conditions and coverage of the policy; 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.2 filed its separate reply raising preliminary objections with regard to suppression of material facts, cause of action, maintainability and jurisdiction; that an amount of Rs.2953.20 was debited from the account of the complainant on 29.07.2017 on account of premium of crop insurance khariff (cotton) and was remitted to the Op No.1; that the premium was accepted by the Op No.1 and it is still lying with it, therefore, the insurance company is liable to make the payment of loss of crop, if any; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.

4.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4.

5.                          On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of tendered affidavit of Sh.Jai Singh, Legal Officers, Legal Annexure R1 and documents Annexure-R2 to Annexure R5, whereas OP No.3 has tendered affidavit of Rajesh Kumar, Manager Ex.RW2/A with documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.RW2/6.

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.2, as is evident through photo copy of statement of account placed on case file as Ex.C4. 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 OP No.1 but when his crop got damaged, no compensation on account of insured crop was given to them despite the fact that they 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.2 in its written statement has mentioned that an amount of Rs.2953.20/- was debited from the account of the complainant and was remitted to the Op No.1 which is still lying with the Op No.1/insurance company.

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.54057.56/- per hectare and this fact finds support from the report made by concerned department Ex.C2). 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.2/bank the insurance premium is still lying with the Op No.1, therefore, Op No.1 insurance company is found deficient in service and is also found involved in unfair trade practice.

11.                        As per record, the complainant had sown cotton crop in 52 kanal 6 marla land which comes to 2.12 hectare.  The concerned department had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.54057.56/- per hectare (Ex.C2).  Hence, the complainant is entitled for the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,14,602/- (in round figure) for loss of cotton crop in 2.12 hectare i.e. (54057.56 x 2.12).

12.                        Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against Op No.1/insurance company to pay an amount of Rs.1,14,602/- (Rs.One Lac Fourteen Thousand Six Hundred Two only) with simple interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual payment to the complainant. The Op No.1 i 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 the compliant till actual payment.  In the given facts and circumstances of this case, no deficiency is found on the part of OP no. 2/bank, therefore, complaint against Op No.2 stands dismissed.  

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:07.06.2023                                                                                                  

                                                          (Harisha Mehta)                (Rajbir Singh)                                                                                       Member                              President