Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/426/2018

Rajesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Dayanand Siwach

10 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.426 of 2018.                                                              Date of Instt.: 28.11.2018.                                                                         Date of Decision: 10.05.2023

Rajesh son of Om Parkash son of Harphool resident of VPO Jandli Kalan, Tehsil & District Fatehabad

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

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

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

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                  Sh.Daya Nand Siwach, 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.                  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 as mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint situated at Village Jandli Kalan 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) facilities with account No.32194820207; that the complainant got the standing cotton crop insured with the Op No.1 on and in this regard an amount of Rs.2395/- being insurance premium was debited from his account by Op No.2 and credited in the account of Op No.1; that the sown cotton crop of the complainant got damaged due to heavy rain fall, flood, snow fall and hailstorm; that the land of the complainant was inspected and the concerned department has assessed the claim to the tune of Rs.18207/- per acre; that 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. In the end, prayer has been made for allowing compensation for loss of crop in sum of Rs.18207/- per acre. Rs.50,000/- and Rs.11,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses has also been claimed.

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

3.                          Op No.1 filed its reply wherein it has been submitted that as per the complaint, loss of cotton crop has been effected but in fact the crop of paddy was insured, therefore, there is mis-match of the crop; that the complainant never intimated to the answering Op for alleged loss of crop despite the fact that it had to be submitted as per the 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 the loss of crop due to heavy rainfall, hailstorm and snowfall is not covered under the guidelines; 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 the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to suppression of material facts, cause of action, maintainability and jurisdiction; that amount of premium of Rs.1783/- for insuring the paddy crop (khariff 2017) was debited from the loan account of the complainant as per his disclosure and thereafter it was sent to Op no.1/insurance company without any delay, 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 complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of one Ramesh son of Om Parkash as Ex.C2/A alongwith documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C3.

5.                          On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of tendered affidavit of Sh.Jai Singh, Senior Executive Legal Annexure R4 and documents Annexure R5 to Annexure R9, whereas OP No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Jaibir Singh, Branch Manager Annexure R1 with documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R3.

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

7.                          In our considered opinion the main controversy to be decided in this matter is as to whether there was any deficiency, on the part of any of the Ops, so as to compensate the complainant, qua alleged damage to his crops, as claimed in the complaint under consideration.

8.                          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 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 OP No.1, but when his crop got damaged, no compensation on account of insured crop was given to him despite the fact that it has completed all the formalities with regard to compensation of damaged cotton crop.

9.                          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. On the other hand, the Ops have resisted the claim of complainant on the ground the complainant himself got insured the paddy crop but now he is claiming loss on account of damage of cotton crop. Learned counsel for the Ops drew the attention of this Commission towards the documents such as copy of proposal form (Annexure R5) and copy of policy Annexure R8.  It is worthwhile to mention here that Annexure R5 i.e. Proposal & Declaration Form (Loanee) is the crucial document to reach at the conclusion with regard to declaration of the crop to be sown during khariff and Rabi session.  Undisputedly, in this very document crop name paddy has been shown, which is duly acknowledged by the bank. It is further pertinent to mention here that after believing the information sent by the bank in Annexure R5, the insurance company issued the policy Annexure R8, wherein the paddy crop has been shown as insured crop.  Strange enough, that the proposal form (Annexure R5) does not bear the signatures of the farmer/complainant. Moreover, in girdawari Annexure C3, the fact regarding sowing of cotton crop in the column of crop, Khariff, 2017 (Sawani 2017) has been mentioned. Therefore, we have no hitch to reach at a conclusion that due to negligency and fault on behalf of Op No.2/bank the cotton crop of the complainant could not be insured. In the guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (Annexure R9) it has specifically mentioned at Sr. No.2 of clause XVII that In case of any substantial misreporting by nodal bank/ branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concerned bank only shall be liable for such-misreporting. In the present matter, due to mis-reporting of the bank/OP No.1 the crop of the complainant could be got insured, therefore, the Op No.2/ bank is found guilty as per Section 2 (11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Relevant Section is reproduced hereunder:

Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (“the Act”), deficiency is any sort of fault, imperfection, shortcoming or defect in the feature, quality, amount, nature, worth, authenticity, capacity and standard which is obligatory to be maintained and regulated as per the laws and statutes in function.

10.                        Perusal of the case file reveals that the complainant has suffered loss of sown crop in 5.51 acre and the concerned Agriculture Department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.18207/- per acre, therefore, it would be just and proper to give compensation to the complainant as assessed by the concerned agriculture department in its report.

11.                        Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against OP no.2/bank with a direction to pay an amount of Rs1,00,320/- (in round figure) (Rs.One Lakh Three Hundred Twenty only) on account of loss suffered by the complainant for the damages of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017, sown by him. Op No.2/bank  is further 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 amount awarded above 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 amount mentioned 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.1, therefore, complaint against Op No.1/insurance company 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. 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:10.05.2023

 

                                                                                                        

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