BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 327 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 25.06.2019.
Date of Decision : 11.05.2023.
Mahendra aged about 50 years son of Shri Bahadar Ram, resident of village Malwani, Tehsil and District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. HDFC Bank Ltd. Mallekan, District Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. having its Head Office at GE Plaza 1st Floor, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune- 411006.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. K.R. Pilania, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Madan Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( after amendment under Section 35 of C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is an agriculturist having agricultural land in village Malwani, Tehsil and District Hanumangarh and he is also having joint KCC account in the op no.1 bank bearing No. 50200015646434. That since complainant has availed crop loan from op no.1 bank, therefore, bank has to get insured the crop of loanee farmers through insurance company as per scheme of the Government of India i.e. Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. It is further averred that during the season of Kharif, 2017 complainant sown cotton crop in his above said land and accordingly on 11.08.2017, the amount of premium of Rs.8597.40 was deducted by op no.1 bank from the bank account of complainant and as such his cotton crop was got insured under the above said scheme. That crop of number of farmers of village Malwani including crop of complainant was damaged on account of natural calamities, pests/ diseases and draught and most of the farmers have already received amount of compensation from the Government/ insurance companies but complainant did not receive any amount from the ops. It is further averred that complainant approached the ops and requested them to indemnify the loss of cotton crop but to no effect and ops about a week ago flatly refused to admit the genuine claim of complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction, maintainability, cause of action, suppression of true and material facts, non joinder of parties etc. On merits, it is submitted that an amount of Rs.9597.40 (actually Rs.8597.40) was debited from the account of complainant on 11.08.2017 and same has been transferred to the account of op no.2 as insurance premium for insurance of crops of complainant. Op no.2 has not raised any objection in this regard nor refunded the said premium within two months from its acceptance, hence, it is presumed that op no.2 has insured the crops of complainant. Hence, op no.2 is liable to compensate the complainant for any loss to his crops. It is further submitted that insurance company has accepted the premium without any objection as per clause 19 (XXII) of Haryana Government Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department notification dated 30.3.2018 and has never refunded the same, therefore, the matter of payment of compensation regarding the loss of crops of complainant is between complainant and op no.2. 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 preliminary objections that for Kharif, 2017, the booking of insurance was done on the basis of the farmers details available in the PMFBY Govt. Portal of the farmers as uploaded by the bank, but the farmer is not insured with this answering op. Other preliminary objections regarding no cause of action, not maintainable for want of jurisdiction, 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 have also been taken. On merits also, it is submitted that insurance company has neither received any premium in this case nor any particulars were made available by the bank at the portal in this regard and as such insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1/A and copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9.
6. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager & Principal Officer as Ex.R1, statement of account Ex.R2, and insurance particulars Ex.R3.
7. Op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Jai Singh, Senior Executive Legal as Ex.R4 and copies of documents Ex.R5, Ex.R6 and again Ex.R6.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully. Written arguments on behalf of op no.2 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. Learned counsel for op no.1 has contended that op no.1 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.1.
11. 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.2 as well as provided by op no.1 bank the crop of complainant in the land situated in village Barani, District Karnal was got insured with op no.2. He has further contended that as per declaration form and policy schedule given by HDFC Bank area covered is situated in village Barani, Taluka Nilokheri, District Karnal, Haryana whereas complainant is claiming for loss of his cotton crop in the land situated in village Malwani, Tehsil and District Hanumangarh which is not insured under the policy with op no.2, 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.
12. We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties. From the statement of account of complainant Ex.C2, it is evident that on 01/11.08.2017, an amount of 8597.40 was deducted from the account of complainant by op no.1 bank for insurance of cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 and according to op no.1 bank, said premium amount was paid to op no.2 insurance company for insuring the cotton crop of complainant of Kharif, 2017 season as per Prime Minister Fasal Beema Yojna and in this regard op no.1 bank has also placed on file particulars of insurance of farmers including complainant as Ex.R3 in which it is mentioned that amount of premium was paid to op no.2 insurance company through UTR No. 59332201708147899647. The op no.2 has wrongly relied upon policy schedule Ex.R5 as in the said document the branch of the HDFC Bank is of Karnal and not of Mallekan. In the claim summary prepared by op no.2 Ex.R6 also, the name of farmer i.e. complainant his father name as well as his account number are same. So, the plea of op no.2 insurance company that crop of complainant was not insured with it has no substance. The plea raised by op no.2 insurance company that actually crop of complainant in land situated in village Barani, District Karnal was insured with it and crop of complainant in land situated in village Malwani was not insured is not proved through any cogent, reliable and convincing evidence. Moreover, op no.2 insurance company has not placed any record provided by op no.1 bank to op no.2 to prove that op no.1 bank shown the land of complainant in village Barani District Karnal. In order to prove loss to the cotton crop of complainant, learned counsel for complainant during the course of arguments has also placed on file document i.e. yield estimate for Kharif 2017-2018 and according to this document, in village Malwani, there was 50% loss to the cotton crop in kharif, 2017. So, complainant is entitled to claim amount for the loss of 50% to his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 sown in the land situated in village Malwani, District Hanumangarh from op no.2 insurance company.
13. Now the question arises for consideration that to what amount of claim the complainant is entitled for the loss of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2017. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has contended that insurance premium amount of Rs.8597.40 was deducted by op no.1 bank for insuring his cotton crop in 5.9 hectare of land and in this regard learned counsel for complainant has also relied upon revenue record in the shape of copies of jamabandis as Ex.C5 to Ex.C8. During the course of arguments learned counsel for complainant has also contended that sum insured for the cotton crop in Kharif, 2017 in the area of complainant was Rs.60,000/- per hectare but however as per the notification of Rajasthan Government dated 22.07.2017 ( placed on record of similar cases and now copy of the same is also being placed in this file), the insured amount of cotton crop in District Hanumangarh in Kharif, 2017 was Rs.51,568/-. The premium amount of Rs.8597.40 was deducted from account of complainant for insuring cotton crop in 5.9 hectare of land and as per above said report placed on file on behalf of complainant, there was 50% loss to the cotton crop in 2017. So, the complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,52,125/- for the loss of his cotton crop in Kharif, 2017 in 5.9 hectare of land from op no.2 insurance company. However, no liability of any kind of op no.1 bank towards complainant is made out.
14. In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint qua opposite party no.2 and direct the op no.2 insurance company to pay claim amount of Rs.1,52,125/- 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 on the above said amount of Rs.1,52,125/- from op no.2 from the date of this order till actual payment. We also direct the op no.2 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.1 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: 11.05.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
