Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/179/2022

Rambir - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rishipal Pahal

10 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

 

                                                                        Complaint Case No. 179 of 2022

                                                                        Date of Institution:  21.07.2022

                                                                        Date of Decision:    10.01.2024         

 

Rambir age 37 years S/o Dhajja Ram, R/o Loharwara, Tehsil & Distt. Charkhi Dadri.

 

                                                                                                        ….Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co., through Manager Bajaj Allianz House, Airport Road, Yerawada, PUNE-411006.
2. S.D.O.Agriculture Office, Charkhi Dadri, District Charkhi Dadri.

 

                                                                                                        …....OP/Respondent

            COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

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

                        Hon’ble Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Present:           Sh. Rishipal Pahal, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh. Rahul Sheoran, Adv. for OP no.1.

                        OP no.2 given up vide order dt.13.10.2023

 

ORDER:-

1.                 Rambir (hereinafter referred to as “complainant”) has filed the present complaint against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as “OP”) with the averments that he is an agriculturist by profession and resides in village Loharwara, Tehsil and District Charkhi. It is averred that he got insured his 1.2  hectare cotton crop of Kharif 2021 vide Receipt No. 0401062100409053106 by paying insurance premium amount of Rs. 5137.32/- to the  insurance company. It is averred that the complainant suffered losses of approx.80% of cotton crop of Kharif 2021 due to heavy rain (water logging) but the OP no.1 failed to pay the claim of Rs. 1,02,746.40/- to the complainant. It is averred that the complainant run from pillar to post to get the compensation of the damaged crop, but the OP no.1 did not pay any compensation to the complainant. As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1, the complainant seeks directions against the OP no.1 insurance company to make the payment of claim amount of Rs. 1,02,746.40/- along with interest, compensation and the litigation expenses besides any other relief which this Commission may found deem fit and proper.

2.                    Upon notice, the OP no.1 appeared and filed his written statement. In its written statement, the OP no.1 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 averred that OP no.1 has received the premium on 12.08.2021 under the PMFBY under which land record has not been uploaded/verified on the NCIP portal by the farmer and CSC and intimation mail was sent on 24.08.2021 to CSC. It is further averred that the application for insurance of the complainant/farmer was rejected by answering OP, as village name given in the land record of the insured/farmer does not match with the portal data and premium received was refunded. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and the complainant is not entitled for any claim and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.                     The OP no.2 appeared and filed its separate written statement and averred that the answering OP is a collaborator who has borne part amount of insurance premium as per notification of Haryana Government. It is averred that the complainant is not a consumer of OP no. 2, hence he cannot claim any amount from the answering OP no.2. The answering OP no.2 had sent the record to the OP no.1 after got preparing the report of loss to crops due to water logging prepared by Joint Committee as per guidelines of PMFBY, after conducting survey. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP. Accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought by the qua OP no.2.

4.                     In the evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex. CW-1/A and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-3 and closed the evidence on 4.1.2023.

5.                     On the other hand, the OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. RW-1/A and closed the evidence on 09.08.2023.

6.                     Ld. Counsel for the complainant has agreed for given up OP no.2 being unnecessary party vide his statement dated.13.10.2023

7.                     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 OP no.1 reiterated the contents of their written statement and drawn the attention of this Commission towards the documents so placed on record by the parties.

8.                      We have observed that the complainant by filing his affidavit (Ex.CW-1/A), has corroborated the contents of his complaint as true and correct Moreover, sowing certificate is in the name of Rambir complainant, which shows that the complainant had sown cotton crop in his 3 Killa land. The said certificate is duly attested by Namberdar. So, the contention raised by the OP no.1 in their written statement that the application submitted by the complainant was rejected on the ground that land record documents were incomplete and not uploaded on the portal is wrong and illegal because as per the notification of Agricultural and Farmers Welfare Department, Government of Haryana, it is specifically notified that “The Insurance company shall verify the data 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 2 months of the cut off date and in case of any correction, must report to 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.”

                        OP no.1 insurance Company has wrongly withheld the claim of complainant which not only amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP no.1-Insurance Company rather is an adoption of unfair trade practice.

                        The CSC application (Annexure C-2) proves fact that Rambir complainant had got insured his 1.2 hectare cotton crop with the OP no.1 for total sum insured Rs.1,02,746.4/-on payment of  Rs.14,384.46 towards premium amount. (i.e. Govt. share as Rs. 9247.14 ps and farmer/complainant share as Rs. 5137.32ps).

9.                     As per guidelines of PMFBY, a Joint Committee (sub-Divisional Officer, Concerned Tehsildar, Deputy Director Agriculture and concerned insurance company representative) will conduct a survey of crop losses and prepare a crop loss report. In the present case, joint committee conducted survey on 30.09.2021 and prepared loss report on dt.18.11.2021 for cotton crop loss due to Inundation during season Kharif 2021 in Village Loharwara where loss was 90%. The said sample survey reports of crop loss due to Inundation during season Kharif 2021 was duly signed by Joint Committee (sub-Divisional Officer, Concerned Tehsildar, Deputy Director Agriculture & Farmer Welfare Department and concerned insurance company representative).

 10.                  On perusal of above documents, it stands established that the complainant suffered 90% losses of cotton crop of 1.2 hectare land, which was insured by the OP no.1 under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana for Rs.1,02,746.4/- and the same was destroyed due to some calamity/Inundation but the OP no.1 wrongly and illegally refunded the amount of premium in the bank account of complainant on 06.12.2021 as per affidavit (Ex.RW-1/A) submitted by Eileen Rose Tirkey, on behalf of OP no.1. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant insured his cotton crop and paid premium of Rs. 5137.32/- but the OP no.1 refunded the amount to the complainant on 06.12.2021.

11.                   We have observed that the OP no.1 has tried to prove that application submitted by the complainant through CSC was rejected but failed to place on record any evidence in support of their case that on the basis of which document, the OP no.1 had rejected the claim of complainant.

12.                   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 no.1 who wrongly and illegally rejected the crop insurance application of complainant without any justified reason and refunded the amount of premium into the account of complainant. Therefore, we are of the considered view that due to this carelessness, negligent and deficient act on the part of OP no.1, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment as well financial losses. We, therefore, direct the OP no.1 to pay  Rs.92,472/-(Rupees Ninty Two Thousand Four Hundred & Seventy Two only) to the complainant as compensation on account of 90% loss of insured cotton crop of 1.2 hectare land, which was insured for Rs.1,02,746.4/-, after deducting the premium amount already refunded for Rs. 5137.32/- to the complainant on 06.12.2021, if any. Meaning thereby that an amount of Rs. 87,335/- is to be paid to the complainant for 90% loss of cotton crop. The above awarded amount shall be paid by the OP no.1 to the complainant along with an interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 21.07.2022, till final realization.

13.         The OP no.1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) on account of mental agony, harassment etc. and Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.

14.                   The present complaint stands partly allowed in the manner as indicated above.

15.                   The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which further interest @10% p.a. will be paid by the OP no.1 for the delayed period.

16.                   Certified copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.