Haryana

StateCommission

A/43/2020

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GRAM PANCHAYAT JHAMOLA - Opp.Party(s)

PUNIT JAIN

07 Feb 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    43 of 2020

Date of Institution:  17.01.2020

Date of Decision:    07.02.2020

 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office GESCO Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-41006, through its authorized signatory.

Local Address: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 156-159, Sector-9C, Chandigarh.

 

 

Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

 

Versus

 

1.      Gram Panchayat, Jhamola, Tehsil Julana, District Jind, through its Sarpanch Sunil Kumar son of Shri Tek Ram.

 

Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

2.      Punjab National Bank, Karela, Tehsil Julana, District Jind.

 

Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                  

   

 

Present:     Shri Punit Jain, counsel for the appellant.

                    

                  

                            

O R D E R

 

 T.P.S. MANN, J.

 

Opposite party No.2-Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited has filed the instant appeal for challenging the order dated 21.11.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind, whereby, the complaint preferred by Gram Panchayat, Jhamola, Tehsil Julana, District Jind, was partly allowed and the appellant directed to pay Rs.3,51,507/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization; to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of mental as well as physical harassment and hardship; and, to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The compliance of the order was to be made within 30 days from the date of order and in case of default the appellant was liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amounts of Rs.3,51,507/- and Rs.20,000/- from the date of default.

2.      According to the complainant, it was owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 207 kanals 10 marls situated in Village Jhamola and maintaining a bank account with opposite party No.1-Punjab National Bank. Kharif paddy crop of the complainant was insured with opposite party No.2 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) through opposite party No.1 by taking premium of Rs.15,625/- on 31.7.2017 from its bank account. It had planted paddy crop in 22 acres, which crop was totally damaged due to inundation. Intimation in this regard was given to Insurance Company as well as Agriculture Department. On 20.7.2017, a Committee of Agriculture Department, inspected the fields in the presence of authorized person of opposite party No.2 and reported that the paddy crop of the complainant was 100% damaged due to inundation and, accordingly, loss was assessed by the Agriculture Department. The name of the complainant was recorded in the list/report at serial No.58. The complainant submitted that it had suffered loss of paddy yield about 440 quintals and the total loss was Rs.16,72,000/-. The opposite parties avoided the compensation on one pretext or the other, which amounted to deficiency in service on their part and, accordingly, the complainant prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

3.      Upon notice, the opposite parties put in appearance. In its written version, opposite party No.1 stated that the complainant was having a SF account and insurance premium was deducted under PMFBY, which was deposited with opposite party No.2 within time. There was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and, accordingly, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      Opposite party No.2-Insurance Company filed written version, taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable being false and frivolous. On merits, it was pleaded that the farmer was insured with it and on receiving claim intimation survey was conducted on the basis of sampling and, hence, localized claim was payable. There was zero shortfall of yield of the said crop in the given IU as per the data provided by the Government. Hence, the yield claim was not payable. After scrutinization the documents submitted by the complainant and as per survey/loss assessment report assessed in the presence of the farmers, opposite party No.2 observed that as per the loss assessment, the assessor had mentioned that out of the total land, 8.8 hectares of land, insured by the farmers, affected land was not a part of it. By using the formula based structure, the loss/damages causes to the farmers was assessed to the tune of Rs.2,77,693/-. Accordingly, the said amount of Rs.2,77,693/- was paid to the complainant on 27.3.2019. As such, there was no further amount was payable to the complainant under the policy. Accordingly, there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2.

5.      The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit (Exhibit CW1/A) along with documents (Annexures C-1 to C-8). Opposite party No.1 tendered in evidence documents (Annexure OP1/1), whereas, opposite party No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Shri Jai Singh, Legal Officer as Annexure OPW3/A) and document (Annexure OP2/1).

6.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, learned District Forum came to the conclusion that opposite party No.2-Insurance Company had admitted the factum of the crop of the complainant duly insured and on receiving intimation of loss, fields were inspected and as per loss report (Annexure C-6), name of the complainant was mentioned at serial No.58 and loss caused to the crop was 100%. As per document (Annexure OP2/1) Cluster-II, the rate of insured amount for paddy was Rs.71,500/- per hectare i.e. Rs.28,600/- per acre. Since, 22 acres of land belonging to the complainant had suffered loss, the total loss came to Rs.6,29,200/-. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.2,77,693/- had already been paid to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant was entitled to collect a further sum of Rs.3,51,507/-. Accordingly, the complaint was partly allowed and opposite party No.2-Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.3,51,507/- to the complainant along with simple interest @ 9% per annum, Rs.20,000/- on account of mental as well as physical harassment and hardship besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the complainant stood insured for the paddy crop and on receipt of intimation from the complainant, the claim was assessed to the tune of Rs.2,77,693/-, which was paid to the complainant and as per the scheme, no further amount was due to the complainant with regard to the loss of the paddy crop. Accordingly, prayer has been made for accepting the appeal and for setting aside the impugned order.

8.      Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the impugned order, the State Commission finds that as per document (Annexure OP2/1) Cluster-II, the rate of insured amount for paddy was Rs.71,500/- per hectare or Rs.28,600/- per acre. Thus, the loss assessed was Rs.6,29,200/-.

9.      Since, it is the admitted case of opposite party No.2-Insurance Company which was not disputed by the complainant, the complainant had already received a sum of Rs.2,77,693/- from the Insurance Company, therefore, it was entitled to receive a further sum of Rs.3,51,507/- from the Insurance Company, as mentioned above. Hence, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order to the extent of granting a sum of Rs.3,51,507/- to the complainant along with simple interest @ 9% per annum besides Rs.20,000/- on account of mental and physical harassment and hardship besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

10.    The appeal is devoid of any merit and, accordingly, dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant while filing the appeal shall be disbursed in favour of the complainant against proper receipt and identification subject to appeal/revision, if any, in accordance with law.

 

 

Announced 07.02.2020

(Ram Singh Chaudhary) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

  D.R.