Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/137/2022

Jagbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.D., Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Vikash Kumar

09 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No. 137 of 2022

                                                         Date of Institution:  27.05.2022

                                                          Date of Decision:      09.08.2024    

 

Jagbir Singh, son of Ramehar Singh, resident of village Bhagwi, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri

 

                                                                   ….Complainant.

                                      Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Bajaj Allianz House, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006 through its authorized signatory/Agent.

 

•  

 

                   COMPLAINT UNDER THE

                   CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before: -     Hon’ble Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal, President

                   Hon’ble Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

 

Present:      Sh. Vikas Kumar, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh. Rajender Verma, Adv. for OP.

 

ORDER:-

              

1.             Complainant Jagbir Singh (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) has filed the present complaint against the  opposite party (hereinafter referred to as “the OP”) with the averments that he owns and possesses agriculture land, situated in the revenue state of village Bhagwi, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri. It is averred that the complainant got insured his Cotton crop from the OP and accordingly, the OP issued receipt No. 0401062100411954301. It is averred that the said crop of complainant was insured by the OP under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY). It is averred that the crop of complainant and other villagers got fully damaged due to water lodging. It is averred that the said cotton crop of complainant as well as of some other villagers were fully damaged. Intimation in his regard was given to the OP and survey was got conducted. The complainant completed all the requirement of OP in order to get the claim of her damaged crop, which was duly insured under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, but the OP refused to make any payment of claim amount to the complainant. It is averred that this act of refusing to grant compensation for damaged kharif 2021 cotton crop of complainant, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, the complainant seeks directions against the OP to pay the sum assured amount of Rs. 51,974.26/-along with interest, compensation and the litigation expenses besides any other relief, to which the complainant is found entitled.
2. Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed their written statement. In its written statement, the OP took some preliminary objections that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Commission and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is also averred that as per clause No. 17.7.4, Insurance company retains the right to accept or reject insurance proposal (s) within 15 days/30 days of receipt of proposal/application for loanee/non loanee respectively, in case proposal/application is incomplete, not accompanied by necessary documentary proof, Aadhaar Number or Aadhaar Enrolment Number/Slip or insurance premium the proposal/application will be rejected and the insurance company will fully refund the collected premium to the proposer/applicant.

          It is averred that the application submitted by the complainant was rejected as the village name given in the portal data does not match with the land record and hence, premium received by the insurance company was refunded to the complainant on 14.12.2021. It is averred that when the crop has not been insured, there is no question to pay any claim to the complainant. Hence it is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complainant is not entitled for any claim. Accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought by the OP.

3.             In the evidence, the counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit Ex. CW-1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-6 and closed the evidence on 08.02.2023.

4.                     On the other hand, the counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. RW-1/A and closed the evidence on 13.03.2024

5.                     We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the entire evidence placed on record by the parties very carefully and minutely. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel of complainant reiterated the contents of complaint filed by the complainant and the learned counsel for the OPs reiterated the contents of their written statement and drawn the attention of this Commission towards the documents so placed on record by the parties.

6.                     We have perused the documents placed on file very carefully and minutely. After hearing the arguments of both the counsel for the parties, going through the entire case file and perusing the documents so placed on record very carefully and minutely,  we have observed that the complainant by filing his affidavit (Ex.CW-1/A), has corroborated the contents of her complaint as true and correct and drawn the attention of this Commission towards document Nakal Jamabandi for the year 2018-19 (Ex. C-1) wherein the name of complainant Jagbir S/o Sh. Rammehar is mentioned and the same is situated in revenue estate of village Samaspur, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri. So, the contention raised by the OP in their written statement that the application submitted by the complainant was rejected on the ground that village name given in the portal data does not match with the land record provided by the complainant is wrong and illegal. Moreover, sowing certificate issued by Nambardar of Gram Panchayat, also make clear this fact that the complainant Jagbir S/o Sh. Rammehar had sown 0.607 hectare cotton crop which was duly insured by the OP vide CSC application (Ex. C-2) for Rs. 51,974.26/-after getting premium of govt. share Rs. 4677.68 ps and farmer share as Rs. 2598.71 ps.

7.       In order to prove the contents of complaint that the complainant suffered losses of cotton crop, the learned counsel for complainant has placed on record Assessment Report (Ex. C-3) duly issued by the Block Agriculture Officer, Dadri wherein on form No. 3 of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojna, it was certified by the authority that the complainant suffered losses of cotton crop of 0.61 hectare land upto 60% of cotton crop sown by her due to Inundation.

8.      On perusal of above documents, it stands established that the complainant suffered approx.60% losses of cotton crop of 0.61 hectare land, which was insured by the OP under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana for Rs. 51,974.26/-. The crop was destroyed due to calamity/Inundation but the OP wrongly and illegally refunded the amount of premium in the bank account of complainant on 14.12.2021. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant applied for insurance of cotton crop but the OP refunded the amount to the complainant on 14.12.2021 as name of the village was not matching with land records. It proves that the complainant had intention to insure the cotton crop for which premium was paid, but due to mismatch of name of village on CSC portal the crop was not insured and premium was refunded.

9.          We have observed that the OP has mentioned in written statement that they have rejected the application on the ground that the name of the village was not matching with land records provided by the farmer on CSC Portal, which is illogical and not sustainable as it was responsibility of the insurer to verify the details of insured farmer. The insurance company is also required to verify the data of insured farmer provided by the Bank.

In this connection Clause 16 (xxix) pertaining to  “Role of insurance companies” of the notification no.1408-Agri-II(1)-2019/7280 dated 24.05.2019 issued by Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, Haryana is reproduced below:-

          “The insurance Company shall verify the details of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of the cutoff date and in case of any correction must report to the state government failing which no objection by the insurance company at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the insurance company to pay the claim.”

Hence, the OP (Bajaj Allianz Genera Insurance Company Ltd.) cannot be absolved from responsibility of verifying the credentials of the farmer.

10.                   In view of aforesaid discussion and findings, we are of the considered view that there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP who rejected the crop insurance application of complainant and refunded the amount of premium into the account of complainant, on the ground that name of village was not matching with revenue records. Instead of rejection of application, the OP should have taken action for correction of name of the village. The revenue record (Nakal Jambandi) Ex.C1 submitted by the complainant shows name of village “Samaspur” while on CSC portal it was recorded “Bhagvi” where the complainant resides. The crop was insured for total sum insured of Rs.51,974.26 (Ex.C4) and expected loss was 60% (Ex.C3) in village Samaspur where the land of the complainant is situated. The name of village was mentioned wrongly and owns of the same also lies on the insurance company.

11.  
12.  

13.                   In the light of above mentioned facts, we are of the considered view that due to this carelessness, negligent and deficient act on the part of OP, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment as well as financial losses.  Hence the complaint is allowed. We, therefore, direct the OP as under:-

1. To treat the cotton crop of the complainant insured and to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. 31,184/- only to the complainant as compensation on account of 60% loss of insured cotton crop of 0.607 hectare land which was insured for Rs. 51,974.26/-, after deducting the premium amount refunded to the complainant on 14.12.2021. The above awarded amount shall be paid by the OP to the complainant along with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 27.05.2022 till final realization.
2.  To pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) on account of mental agony, harassment etc.
3. To pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.
4.  Punitive damages for Rs.10,000/-  to the credited  in the bank account in the name of LEGAL AID ACCOUNT OF THE STATE COMMISSION, bearing A/c No. 38283037741, IFSC Code SBIN0050969, Branch Code 50969 with State Bank of India, Sector-4, Panchkula and deposit the receipt of the same with the District Commission

14.                    The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of receiving the copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall also attract interest@12% p.a.

15.                   Certified copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs.

16.                   File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.