BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.              

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 130 of 2019.                                                                         

                                                         Date of Institution :    13.03.2019.

                                                          Date of Decision   :    03.05.2023.

Gulab Singh son of Shri Manphul Dudu, aged about 58 years, resident of village Padampura, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.) Mobile No. 98287-26618.

                                ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Head Office- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, GE Plaza, Ist Floor, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune- 411006. Tel. No. 91-020-66026666.

2. HDFC Bank, Branch Ding Mandi, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.

...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended   under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

BEFORE:  SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT                                   

               MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Mahesh Pareek, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Madan Goyal, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

                   Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

ORDER

                    The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).

2.       In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist having his agricultural land measuring 4.35 hectare comprised in Khewat/ Khatuni No. 41/96, Muraba No. 51, 52 in village Padampura, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh and is wholly dependent upon agricultural income in all respects. That complainant is having his account bearing No. 50200012369652 with op no.2. It is further averred that as per scheme of Central Government namely Prime Minister Fasal Beema Yojna, the cotton crops sown in the land of complainant was insured with op no.1 against loss, damages of crop due to natural causes and accordingly an amount of Rs.6003/- was deducted on 11.8.2017 as premium by op no.2 from the account of complainant and was transferred to the account of op no.1 for the insurance of crops. That complainant had sown crop of cotton in his above said land in year 2017 which was damaged due to disaster of white bees and other natural calamities and therefore, complainant is entitled to insurance amount. It is further averred that on 18.07.2018, the op bank intimated the complainant that the claim amount of Rs.3,00,150/- has been transferred to the account of complainant and accordingly entries were made in his account, but on 10.09.2018 this amount was withdrawn by op no.2 bank without any intimation to the complainant. The complainant enquired about the matter and came to know about modus-operandi of the op and after lot of bargaining, the op bank agreed to again credit the said amount of Rs.3,00,150/- in the account of complainant and entry was made accordingly. It is further averred that but to his utter surprise and dismay on 10.09.2018 the ops in collusion with each other debited the claim amount from the above said account of complainant without any intimation or consent on his part. The complainant came to know about withdrawal of said amount only on 10.12.2018 when he received a letter from op bank demanding a large sum showing due against the complainant and this flip flop attitude of the ops caused great inconvenience, mental agony and harassment to the complainant. It is further averred that complainant approached the ops in this regard who assured him that an email has been sent to the higher ups and needful will be done by them but all in vain. That the ops are all out to grab the amount of insurance claim of complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.       On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding non maintainability for want of jurisdiction, non intimation, no yield data provided for cotton crop in the notified village, non submission of proof of loss or weather report, limited coverage as per scheme, yield basis claims are decided by Government, no survey no quantification of loss, no privity of contract and non impleading of necessary parties etc. On merits, it is submitted that op no.2 provided farmer insurance in the notified area District Panipat, Tehsil Madlaud, village Nauhra. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.

4.       Op no.2 also filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that op no.1 has given claim in favour of complainant for Rs.3,00,150/- on 18.07.2018 but got returned said amount on 20.07.2018 and then again granted said amount in the favour of complainant on 07.08.2018 and cancelled said claim on 10.09.2018 and got returned said amount. Op no.1 is liable to compensate the complainant and op no.1 is to explain why they have granted the insurance amount to the complainant and then how they got returned said amount. It is further submitted that answering op sent mail to op no.1 on the request of complainant. The matter of payment of insurance claim is between the complainant and op no.1 and answering op has nothing to do with the same. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2 made.  

5.       The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14.

6.       Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager & Principal Officer as Ex.R1 and statement of account Ex.R2.

7.       Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Jai Singh, Senior Executive Legal as Ex.R3 and copies of documents Ex.R4 and Ex.R5.

8.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully. Written arguments on behalf of op no.1 also filed which have also been perused.

9.       Learned counsel for complainant contended that the insured cotton crop of complainant was damaged and complainant is legally entitled to insurance claim from the ops and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

10.     On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.1 in the written arguments as well as orally contended that as per record of op no.1 as well as provided by op no.2 bank the crop of complainant in the land situated in village Nauhra, District Panipat was got insured with op no.1. He has further contended that as per declaration form and policy schedule given by HDFC Bank area covered is situated in village Nauhra, Tehsil Madlauda, District Panipat, Haryana whereas complainant is claiming for loss of his cotton crop in the land situated in village Padampura, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh which is not insured under the policy with op no.1, therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non coverage of area and non receiving of any premium for the alleged loss location.

11.     Learned counsel for op no.2 has contended that op no.2 has discharged its duty by insuring the crop of complainant as per PMFBY and matter of compensation, if any is between complainant and insurance company and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua op no.2.

12.     We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties. From the statement of account of complainant Ex.C3, it is evident that on 11.08.2017, an amount of 6003/- was deducted from the account of complainant by op no.2 and there is no dispute of the fact that said amount of Rs.6003/- deducted by op no.2 bank from the account of complainant was paid to op no.1 insurance company for insuring the cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 as per Prime Minister Fasal Beema Yojna. According to the complainant, his cotton crop sown in 4.35 hectare of agricultural land was damaged. Further from the statement of account of complainant Ex.C3, it is also evident that claim amount of Rs.3,00,150/- in lieu of damage of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 was credited in the account of complainant for two times and same was got withdrawn from his account for two times. In this regard, op no.2 bank has asserted that op no.1 insurance company cancelled the claim and got returned said amount. On the other hand, op no.1 insurance company has asserted that crop of complainant in the land of complainant situated in village Padampura was not got insured from it rather as per record, the crop situated in village Nauhra District Panipat was got insured from op no.1 and therefore, op no.1 is not liable to pay any compensation for the loss of cotton crop of complainant sown in the area of village Padampura. But we found no substance in the plea of op no.1 insurance company because admittedly complainant is resident of village Padampura (Rajasthan) and is also having his land in village Padampura and is having his account bearing No.50200010162605 with op no.2 and premium amount of Rs. 6003/- was also paid to op no.1 insurance company by op no.2 bank from the said account of complainant and therefore, now at this stage insurance company op no.2 cannot take the plea that his crop in the land situated in village Padampura was not insured and his crop in the land situated in village Nauhra, District Panipat was insured. Further more from claim summary Ex.R4 placed on record by op no.1 insurance company itself it is evident that name of complainant, name of his father and his account are same. Though op no.1 has placed on file duplicate copy of policy schedule as Ex.R5 to prove that farmers of Haryana were insured by op no.2 bank but in the said document, the branch of HDFC Bank is of Karnal and it appears that op no.1 in order to escape from its liability to pay claim amount to the complainant has produced wrong record on the case file and has also prepared wrong claim summary at its own claiming that land of insured farmer is in village Nauhra, District Panipat whereas farmer i.e. complainant whose father name is also same in the claim summary, his account number is also same and thus it has been wrongly shown that he is having land in village Nauhra District Panipat. Moreover, op no.1 insurance company has not placed any other record provided by op no.2 bank to op no.1 to prove that op no.2 bank shown the land of complainant in village Nauhra, District Panipat. So, the op no.1 insurance company is liable to compensate the complainant for loss, if any to the cotton crop of complainant in his agricultural land situated in village Padampura.

13.     Now the question arises that to what claim amount the complainant is entitled for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. Admittedly initially the claim amount of Rs.3,00,150/- was credited in the account of complainant by op no.1 insurance company as at that time claim amount was assessed on the basis that complainant is having land in village Nauhra but however, thereafter said amount was got withdrawn by op no.1 from the account of complainant. So, the claim of complainant is to be assessed on the basis of his land situated in village Padampura, District Hanumangarh. During the course of arguments learned counsel for complainant has contended that sum insured for the cotton crop in Kharif, 2017 in the area of complainant was Rs.60,000/- per hectare which is also not disputed on behalf of op no.1 insurance company. The complainant is having 4.35 hectare of land and as per report of Tehsildar, Nohar placed on file by complainant during the course of arguments, there was 50% loss to the cotton crop in 2017 due to less rain. So, the complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,30,500/- for the loss of his cotton crop in Kharif, 2017 in 4.35 hectare of land from op no.1 insurance company. However, no liability of any kind of op no.2 towards complainant is made out.

14.     In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint qua opposite party no.1 and direct the op no.1 insurance company to pay claim amount of Rs.1,30,500/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. We also direct the op no.1 to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. However, complaint qua op no.2 bank is hereby dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced:                                       Member                President,

Dated:03.05.2023.                                                          District Consumer Disputes

JK                                                                         Redressal Commission, Sirsa.