Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/240/2018

Om Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Sita Ram Beniwal

17 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.240 of 2018.                                                              Date of Instt.:  28.08.2018.                                                                        Date of Decision:  17.04.2023.

 

Om Parkash son of Bagrawat resident of village Bighar 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.Canara Bank, Branch Fatehabad Tehsil & District through its Branch Manager.

                                                                           ...Opposite parties

 

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

Present:                 Sh.Sita Ram Beniwal, 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

                    Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is owner in possession of land situated at Village Bighar Tehsil & District Fatehabad, the detail of which is mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint; 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.2343840002657; that the complainant got the standing crop insured under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the Op No.1; that due to heavy rain fail, hailstorm and snow fall, 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.36,026.02/- per hectare; that despite several requests the claim for damaged crops has not been paid by the Ops, due to which complainant has suffered great financial losses; that the insured amount has never been returned/refunded to the complainant. In the end, prayer has been made for allowing compensation for lost crops in sum of Rs.87,723/-. Rs.30,000/- and Rs.7700/- have also been claimed towards mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. Any other relief at the discretion of this Commission also sought.

2.                          Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately.  Op No.1 filed its separate reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action and locus standi etc. It has been further averred that the present complaint before this Commission is not maintainable because  except localized claims, all other perils were to be finalized by government agencies and  the complainant should have approached DAC & FW Department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and decision of said department would have been binding on State Government/Insurance Company/Banks/farmers but instead of that the complainants had approached the District Consumer Commission (earlier Consumer Forum) with malafide intention by violating standard terms and conditions of the scheme. Further, the complainant had never given any intimation to the insurance company regarding any loss despite the fact that there is a condition for immediate intimation of claim within 48 hours of loss. It has been further averred that no proof of loss or weather report has been submitted with insurance company by the complainant and even quantification of loss cannot be determined in absence of necessary survey and there is no privity of contract between complainants and insurance company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of insurance company.  Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          In the reply filed on behalf of Op No.2, it has been averred, inter-alia, that this complaint is wrong against law; that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint and the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. It has been further submitted that an amount of Rs.3430/- as premium of insurance of cotton crop of the complainant was debited from the loan account and was remitted to OP no.1 but the Op No.1 in the month of February, 2018 credited an amount of Rs.35133/- in the bank account without giving any explanation and detail. 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.

4.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C5 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 Sh.Jai Singh, Sr.Executive Legal as Annexure R1 with documents Annexure Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 whereas learned counsel for the Op No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Pawan Kumar, Branch Manager as Annexure R6 alongwith documents Annexure R7 and Annexure R8. 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.                          The grievance of the complainant is that his cotton crop for the Khariff, 2017 season was damaged due to heavy rain fall, hailstorm and snow fall but he has not received any insurance claim till today. The complainant in order to prove his case, has placed on file copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-13 as Ex.C1 and copy of khasra girdwari for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C2. The complainant has also placed on record copy of statement of account Ex.C3, from which it is proved on record that on 31.07.2017 an amount of Rs.3430.45/- was deducted from his account by op no.2 as insurance premium for insuring the cotton crop of kharif 2017 with op no.1. 

8.                          OP No.2 in its written statement has admitted that an amount of Rs.3430/- as premium of insurance of cotton crop of the complainant was debited from the loan account of complainant and further it was remitted to the Op No.1.  It has also been mentioned in the written statement that all of a sudden, the insurance company remitted back an amount of Rs.35133/- to it in the month of February without any justification and reason despite knowing the fact that the insured crops got suffered loss and the insurance company will have to make the insurance claim.

9.                          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.36026.02 per hectare. This fact finds support from the report made by concerned Agriculture Department on the application dated 02.04.2019 of the complainant, which is placed on case file as Annexure Ex.C5.

10.                        Undisputedly, the insurance company had accepted the payment qua insurance premium of crop and kept the same with it for a longer period of more than six months meaning thereby that op no.1 had accepted the premium without any objection and now when the damage to the crop of complainant has been caused, then op no.1 arbitrarily and illegally denying to pay the genuine claim of the complainant. So, the OP no.1 is found deficient in service and is also found involved in unfair trade practice. In the given facts and circumstances of this case, the Op No.1 only is found liable to pay claim amount for the damages to the cotton crop of complainant for Kharif 2017 season and op no.2 is not found responsible in this regard. 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.

11.                        As per version of the complainant, the complainant has suffered crop loss in 2.486 hectare (Ex.C4) and perusal of Ex.C5 reveals that the concerned department has assessed the yield loss to the tune of Rs.36026.02 in village Bigher. There is nothing on file to disbelieve the version of complainant. The complainant has not claimed any excess amount in this regard. Therefore, the end of justice would met, if we allow the complaint with a direction to the Op No.1 to make the payment of Rs.89560/- (2.486 X 36026.02) in round figure on account of yield loss of crop. Besides above said amount, complainant is also entitled to compensation for harassment and litigation expenses from op no.1.

12.                        Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against OP no.1 with a direction as follows:

(1)                        To pay an amount of Rs.89560/- (2.486 X 36026.02) in round figure as insurance claim amount to the complainant for the damages of cotton crop of Kharif, 2017.

(2)                        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 mentioned at Sr. No. (1) would carry simple interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.  The order be complied within a period of 30 days from today, failing which the entire amount mentioned at Sr. Nos. (1) & (2) 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. 2, therefore, complaint against Op No.2 stands dismissed.  However, the Op No.2 is directed to return the amount of insurance premium to the tune of Rs.3430/- received from the Op No.1, within a period of 30 days from today. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, free of cost, as per rules, and thereafter, the case file be consigned to record room, as per rules, after necessary compliance. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission, as per rules, for perusal of parties herein.

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 17.04.2023

                            

                                                                           

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