Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/91/2022

Pardeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Rohtash Bansi

16 Oct 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

 

                                                Complaint Case No. 91 of 2022

                                                Date of Institution: 05.04.2022

                                                Date of Decision: 16.10.2024

 

Pardeep Kumar son of Shri Dharam Pal, resident of village Fatehgarh, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri.

….Complainant.

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,  Bajaj Allianz House, Airport Road,  Yerawada, PUNE, - 411006 through its Authorized signatory/M.D.

                                                                …....Opposite Party

                COMPLAINT UNDER THE

                CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before: -    Hon’ble Shri Manjit Singh Naryal, President

                Hon’ble Shri Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Present:    Shri Rohtash Banshi, Adv. for complainant.

                Shri Rahul Sheoran, Adv. for OP.

 

ORDER:-

              

                Brief fact of the case are that the complainant is owner in possession of the agricultural land situated in revenue estate of village Fatehgarh, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri, detail of which is given in Para No. 1 of the present complaint.  It is averred that the complainant got insured his Kharif 2021 cotton crop sown in 1.77 Hectare land from the OP through CSC Centre vide application receipt No.0401062100406825895 and paid premium of Rs.7577.53 ps on 31.7.2020 and the Government also gave Rs.13,639.5 ps being premium share on behalf of farmer in PMFBY (Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana) scheme. It is averred that the said cotton crop of complainant as well as of some other villagers were fully damaged due to hailstorm.  Intimation in his regard was given to the OP and survey was got conduced. The complainant completed all the requirement of OP in order to get the claim of his 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. 1,51,550.94/-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 and took some preliminary objections that complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Commission and the complaint is liable to be dismissed etc. It is averred that as per clause No. 17.7.4 of operational guideline of PMFBY: -

“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”.

 

       

        Accordingly, an automated message was sent to mobile number provided by the customer, to submit proper required documents within 15 days at the CSC Centre.  It is averred that the application submitted by the complainant was rejected as land record of the insured /farmer was not uploaded on the PMFBY Portal and hence, premium received by the insurance company was refunded to the complainant on 14.02.2022.  It is further averred that when the crop was not insured, there is no question to pay any claim to the complainant.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complainant is not entitled for any claim and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             Both the parties in support of their respective averments tendered in documentary evidence their respective affidavits and adduced certain documents.  Reference of relevant record shall be given in this order. 

4.                 We have heard both the counsel for parties and gone through the case file thoroughly and after hearing the rival contentions of both the parties, we are of the convinced view that the present complaint has merits and the same deserves acceptance, for the reasons mentioned hereinafter.

5.             After hearing the learned counsels for both the parties and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint in hand deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  The complainant has fully proved his case by placing on record certain documents. Moreover, from Ex. C3, it is clear that the complainant Pardeep Kumar son of Shri Dharam Pal had sown 1.77 hectare cotton crop, which was duly insured by the OP for Rs. 1,51,550.94/- after getting premium of Govt. share Rs. 13639.5 ps and farmer share as Rs. 7577.53 ps.  From the perusal of Assessment Report Ex. C-4 duly issued by the Block Agriculture Officer, Dadri-II, 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 1.77 hectare land upto 85% of cotton crop sown by him due to Inundation. So, it stands established that the complainant has suffered 85% losses of the cotton crop of 1.77 hectare land, which was insured by the OP under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana for Rs. 1,51,550.94/- and the crop was destroyed due to some calamity/Inundation, but the OP had refunded the amount of premium Rs.7577/- in the bank account of complainant on 14.2.2022 as per Ex. C2 and affidavit (Ex. RW-1/A) submitted by Eileen Rose Tirkey, Authorized representative of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance on behalf of OP. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant applied for insurance of Cotton crop and paid premium for Rs.7577.53/- on 31.7.2020, but the OP refunded the premium to the complainant on 14.2.2022 as name of the complainant not found in land records.  The OP had not taken cognizance of statement of declaration made by the owner of the land viz. Amit Kumar and Kapil about giving land to the complainant for cultivation which is allowed under PMFBY.  As regards the contention of the OP that name of the complainant was not found in the land record on portal, the complainant has placed on record a receipt (Ex. C5), wherein the owner of the land viz. Amit Kumar and Kapil, both sons of Shri Surender Singh R/o Village  Fatehgarh, Tehsil & District Charki Dadri have stated that their land was cultivated by the complainant and they have no objection for insurance of the crop under Pardhan Mandtri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) and getting  claim by the complainant.  In this connection reference is invited to Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana - Revamped Operational Guidelines (Effective from Kharif 2020) wherein tenant farmers are allowed for insurance of crop under PMFBY.  The relevant Clause 3 of the said guidelines is reproduced below: -

3. Coverage of Farmers: -

3.1 All farmers including sharecroppers and tenant farmers growing the notified crops in the notified areas are eligible for coverage. However, farmers should have insurable interest for the insured crops and lands. Such farmers are required to submit necessary documentary evidence of land records prevailing in the State (Records of Right (RoR), Land Possession Certificate (LPC) etc.) and/or applicable contract/agreement details/other documents notified/permitted by concerned State Government in case of sharecroppers/tenant farmers and the same should be defined by the respective states in the notification itself. Such farmers are also required to essentially submit Aadhar Number and declaration about the crop sown/crops intended to be sown.

 

6.       Furthermore, OP has failed to place on record the proof of automated message sent to the complainant on his mobile for demanding documents.  The OP has also not proved that they had refunded the huge amount of Govt. share of premium. The malafide intention of the OP Insurance Company is also corroborated by returning the premium only to the complainant and after passing of more than six months from receiving of premium and at the time of tragedy occurred.

7.                In view of aforesaid discussion and findings and documents placed on record and arguments advanced by both the counsel, the complaint is allowed. We therefore, direct the OP as under:-

i)      To pay a sum of Rs. 1,28,818/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 05.04.2022 till final realization, to complainant as compensation on account of 85% loss of insured cotton crop of 1.77 hectare land which was insured for Rs. 1,51,550.94/-, after deducting the premium amount of Rs.7577/- refunded to the complainant on 14.02.2022.

 

ii)     To pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) on account of mental agony, harassment etc. and Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.

 

The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy, failing which the said amount shall also attract interest @9% p.a. from the defaulted period till its actual realization.This order be promptly uploaded on the website of this Commission.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance