Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/313/2018

Krishan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Sukhbir Dhaka

09 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHABAD.

                                                      Complaint Case No.313 of 2018.                                                                Date of institution: 03.10.2018.                                                         Date of decision:          09.05.2023.      

Krishan son of Khairaj resident of Dhanger Tehsil District Fatehabad.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Area Manager, Agri Business Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Chandigarh SCO 150/156 Sector 9 C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
2. Branch Manager, Central Bank of India Branch G.T.Road, Fathehabad Tehsil & District, Fatehabad.

                                                                   ...Opposite parties.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

Present:          Sh.Sukhbir Dhaka, Advocate, for the 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.                  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 situated at Village Dhanger Tehsil & District Fatehabad, the detail of which is mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint; that the complainant had sown cotton crop on the land in question and had also availed Kisan Credit Card (KCC) facility with account No.3600072167; that the complainant got the cotton crop insured under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the Op No.1 on 29.07.2017 and in this regard an amount of Rs.1407/- was debited from his account by Op No.2 on 29.07.2017, 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 and complainant intimated agriculture department/Ops to inspect the loss suffered; that the losses were assessed Rs.52009/- per hectare; that as per 20 kanal, the compensation comes to Rs.55,000 but the same has not been paid by the Ops to the complainant despite several requests, 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.55,000/- alongwith interest @ 24 % per annum. Rs.20,000/- have also been claimed towards mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

2.                           On notice, Ops appeared and filed their separate replies.  Op No.1 in its reply has submitted that as per complainant the loss is due to bad weather but in the absence of claim intimation, the localized claim was not payable; that there was a short fall of yield of 43 % in this notified area and the insured area of complainant was 1.019 hectare and as per SCN his sum insured was 69,000/- and the yield loss of Rs.30069.91 has been paid to the complainant through the bank vide UTR No.N205180592496634; that the amount on the basis of yield loss has already been paid to the complainant, therefore, the question of any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice does not arise at all; that the amount on the yield loss basis has been paid as per the operational guidelines. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the claim has been made.

3.                          OP No.2 filed the written version raising preliminary objections such as complaint is wrong, against law and facts, cause of action, concealment of material facts and locus standi etc.; that the complainant should have approached to DAC & FW Department for any kind of Grievances related to the scheme or any claim; that the loan from the account of the complainant was debited as per the guidelines of the government but the complainant did not provide his aadhar card; that the amount of Rs.1407/- was debited from the account of the complainant on 29.07.2017 for insuring the his crops and the amount to the tune of Rs.1007976 /- was sent to the insurance company on 31.07.2018 vide UTR NO.CBINH17212166819 and an amount of Rs.700000/- was sent to insurance company/Op No.1 on 01.08.2017 vide UTR No.CBINH 17213132634. 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 Annexure C2 & Annexure C4 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                          On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Smt.Sarpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Assistant Manager Annexure R1 alongwith documents Annexure R2 to Annexure R6 whereas learned counsel for the Op No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Salender Kumar as Annexure R7 and documents Annexure R8 to Annexure R10. Thereafter, the evidence of Ops was closed.

6.                          We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.                          It is not disputed that the crop of the complainant was damaged on account of natural calamities; therefore, the concerned department had assessed the loss to the cotton crop for kharif 2017 in the area of village Dhanger to the tune of Rs.52009.06/-.  It is established on the case file that an amount of Rs.30069.61 has already been paid to the complainant by the Op No.1/insurance company through Op No.2/bank.

8.                          The grievance of the complainant is that, the agriculture department has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.52009/- per hectare but he has been paid Rs.30069.61/-, which is on lesser side in comparison to the amount assessed by the agriculture department. Learned counsel for the Op No.1/insurance company drew the attention of this Commission towards Annexure R3 (claim summary) and submitted that the amount of Rs.30069.61/- was given to the farmer/complainant as there was shortfall of 43 % for yield crop.

9.                          After going through the material available on the case file, it is ample clear that there is nothing on the file to show that as to how the OP No.1/Insurance Company has calculated/assessed the crop loss of the complainant and further paid the part payment of Rs.30069.61/- to him being 43 % loss. The act and conduct of insurance company in making the less claim to the complainant, which has also been proved to be genuine, is unwarranted, unreasonable, not only bad in law but also ethically indefensible resulting into financial loss to the complainant besides mental agony and harassment. So, we are of the considered opinion that OP No.1 only is deficient in service and also found indulged in unfair trade practice as defined under Consumer Protection Act.

10.                            In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed against OP No.1/insurance company only and the same is accordingly allowed. OP No.1 is directed to pay sum of Rs.22928/- (in round figure) being balance amount (as amount of Rs.30069.61/- out of the total amount i.e.Rs.52997/- has already been paid to the complainant 02.08.2018)  to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of making the part payment i.e.02.08.2018 till the date actual payment to the complainant.  The Op No.1/insurance company is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. The complaint against Op No.2/bank stands dismissed.  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 02.08.2018  till actual payment.      

11.                        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: 09.05.2023

                                                                                                        

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