Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/357/2018

Sunita - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Inder Karwasra

17 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                               Complaint Case No.357 of 2018.                                                              Date of Instt.:  25.10.2018.                                                                        Date of Decision: 17.04.2023.

Sunita D/O Ram Murti son of Mukh Ram (Wife of Mange Ram) resident of village Bhuthan Khurd, Tehsil & 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.Corporation Bank, Branch Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                  Sh.Inder Singh Karwasra, Advocate for complainant.                                  Sh. U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                          Sh.Sandeep Bhatia, Advocate for Op No.2. 

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

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                    In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is owner in possession of land situated at village Mehuwala Tehsil & District Fatehabad. It is alleged 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.CCCK/01/150008; 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.1022/- was debited on 28.07.2017 from her account by Op No.2 as premium of the insurance in question, which was credited in the account of Op No.1; that due to heavy rain fall, hailstorm and snow fall, the sown cotton crop of the complainant in 14 kanal 13 marlas land got damaged and complainant intimated agriculture department/Ops to inspect the loss suffered; that the losses were assessed Rs.14,800/- per acre; that despite several requests and even serving of legal notice upon the Ops, 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 lost crops in the sum of Rs.27,102/-. Rs.30,000/- also claimed towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.7700/- on account of litigation amount has also been claimed. Any other relief at the discretion of this Commission also sought.

2.                          Upon notice, the OPs-respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately.  Op No.1 in its reply has submitted that the reason for loss mentioned in the complaint has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the policy; that the role of the insurance company is only to pay the claim in accordance with the “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” but the insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant or the bank of the complainant; that the complainant has never intimated to the answering Op for alleged loss of crop despite the fact that it had to be submitted within 48 hours, therefore, due to this further process such as survey of damaged field could not be conducted; that only localized claims were to be decided by the answering Op and other risks were to be handled by the government agencies; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  Other contents mentioned in the complaint have been contorverted and prayer for dismissal of complaint.

3.                          Op No.2 in its separate reply has raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, suppression of material facts and complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer etc.; that the land of the complainant is situated in village Mehuwala but inadvertently the land of the complainant has been entered as of village Bhuthan Khurd in the portal; that vide letters dated 18.11.2017 and 04.12.2017, the insurance company was requested to correct the name of the village; that amount of premium was debited from the loan account of the complainant on account of premium of crop insurance and  thereafter it was sent to Op no.1/insurance company, therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation on account of loss of crops, 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 Annexure A alongwith documents Annexure-B to Annexure-D and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

 5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Sarpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Assistant Manager Legal as Annexure R1 alongwith documents Annexure R2 and Annexure R3 whereas OP No.2 has tendered affidavit of Vinod Kumar, Branch Manager as Annexure R4 alongwith documents Annexure R5 to Annexure R7. Thereafter, the evidence of the Ops was closed.

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

7.                          In para No.6 of the reply on merit in the written statement, the OP No.2/bank has admitted that due to clerical mistake the name of village Bhuthan Khurd instead of village Mehuwala has been uploaded but the premium of was debited for Kharif, 2017 and further remitted to the insurance company. Perusal of the case file reveals that there is nothing on the record to show that the OP No.1/bank has ever sent any report with regard to correction in the name of village. There are sufficient material available on the case file to show that the Op No.2 is also found deficient in service and is also found involved in unfair trade practice because till today no claim on account of cotton crop loss has been given to the complainant. Further, the Op No.1/bank is also found negligent in sending the wrong name of the village as is evident through Annexure R5 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the complainant is owner of the land measuring 0.741 hectare situated at village Mehuwala. In the given facts and circumstances of this case, the Op No.2 only is found liable to pay claim amount for the damages to the Khariff crop of complainant for the year 2017.

10.                        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 but perusal of Ex.R6 reveals that the complainant had sown wheat crop in 0.741 Hectare and the Agriculture Department has assessed the  yield loss to cotton crop in village Mehuwala to the tune of Rs.34526.83/- per hectare for the khariff-2017. 

11.                        Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.1-insurance company to pay Rs.27,100/- (in round figure) for crop loss in 0.741 hectare to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within 45 days from today.  Hence, the present complaint is allowed.  In the present case, respondent No.2-bank has given wrong name of the area in which land was under survey for the damage of crops.  The name of the area is actually Mehuwala while negligently, the officials of bank/OP No.2 have given wrong name of the area to be Bhuthan Khurd.  So, cost of Rs.11,000/- is imposed on the bank/OP No.2 which shall be paid to the complainant. 

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. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 17.04.2023

                                                                                                        

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