Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/22/2019

Ram Chander - 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.22 of 2019.                                                                Date of Instt.: 07.01.2019.                                                                         Date of Decision: 07.06.2023.

Ram Chander son of Ami Lal son of Bhagu resident of village Chandrawal Sub Tehsil Bhuna District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

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

2.State Bank of India Branch Near Red Light Chock, Hisar Road, Fatehabad through Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                   Sh.Davender 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.65048348959; that the complainant got the standing cotton crop insured with the Op No.1 and in this regard an amount of Rs.8474.72/- 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 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 hectare; 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 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.2 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to suppression of material facts, cause of action, maintainability and jurisdiction; that an amount of Rs.7,17,416.33/- of 175 farmers as insurance premium was submitted to the Op No.1/insurance company including the amount of Rs.2774.88 as insurance premium of the complainant; that the premium was accepted by the Op No.1. It has been further submitted that Op No.1 accepted the premium amount and retained the same with it for 6 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.

3.                          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.

4.                          On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of tendered affidavit of Smt.Sarpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Assistant Manager, Legal Annexure R1 and documents Annexure-R2 to Annexure R4, whereas OP No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Amit Pannu, Chief Manager Ex.RW2/A with documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/8.

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

6.                          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.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 them despite the fact that he had completed all the formalities with regard to compensation of damaged cotton crop.

7.                          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 Op No.1 had accepted the premium amount and retained the same with it for 6 months but when the crops got   damages, all of sudden the entire premium was returned and created in BGL Account of the bank called Crop Insurance Claims received account without any reference or correspondence with the answering Op.

8.                          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 document Ex.C2. Op No.1 has not led any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that there was no damage to the crop of cotton of Kharif, 2017 in the village where the land of the complainant falls.  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.

9.                          Undisputedly, the insurance company had accepted the payment qua insurance premium of crop and as per Op No.2bank the Op No.1 had retained the insurance premium with it for 6 months but when the crops got damages, all of sudden the entire premium amount was returned and created in BGL Account of the bank called Crop Insurance Claims received account without any reference or correspondence with the answering Op.

10.                        As per complainant he had sown cotton crop in 186 kanal 18 marla which comes to 9.45 hectare.  The concerned department had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.54057.56 per hectare.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,10,844/-( in round figure) for loss of cotton crop in 9.45 hectare i.e. (54057.56 x 9.45)

11.                        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.5,10,844/- (Rs.Five Lac Ten Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Four only) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual payment to complainant. The Op No.1/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.2 stands dismissed.  However, the Op No.2/bank is directed to return the amount of Rs.8474.72/- to the insurance company within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this order.

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: 07.06.2023                                                                                                 

                                                          (Harisha Mehta)                (Rajbir Singh)                                                                                       Member                              President