Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

cc/103/2021

Chand Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Bajaj Allianz House - Opp.Party(s)

Parveen Kumar

20 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No. 103 of 2021

                                                         Date of Institution: 15.4.2021

                                                          Date of Decision: 20.1.2023

 

Chand Ram son of Prabhu Ram, village Chhapaar, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri.

 

                                                                   ….Complainant.

Versus

1. Manager, Bajaj Allianz House Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune, Pin Code-411006.
2. Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Branch Charkhi Dadri Office Agriculture Department, Loharu road, Charkhi Dadri.
3. Branch Manager, Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank, Chhapaar, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri.
4. Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) Agricultural & Kisan Kalyan Vibhag, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri.

 

•  

 

                   COMPLAINT UNDER THE

                   CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

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

                Hon’ble Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

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

                   Sh. Avinash Sardana, Adv. for OP Nos. 1 & 2.

                   Sh. Pankaj Chhikara, Adv. for OP No. 3.

                   Sh. Anand Kumar, S.A. Charkhi Dadri for OP No. 4.

 

ORDER:-

              

                MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

 

                  Chand Ram (hereinafter referred to as “complainant”) has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “OPs”) with the averments that he got insured his 2.7 hectare land crop of Kharif 2020 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna vide policy No. 040106201041236355301 and insurance premium amount was got deducted through OP No.3 bank to the OP No.1 insurance company. It is averred that the complainant suffered losses of 80% of cotton crop of Kharif 2020 due to heavy rain but the OP Nos. 1 & 2 insurance company failed to pay the claim amount to the complainant. It is averred that the complainant run from pillar to post to get the claim amount, but he was shocked to hear from the OP Nos. 2 & 3 that no Kharif 2020 crop of complainant was insured despite the fact that the premium amount of insurance was deducted from the account of complainant. As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant seeks directions against the OP Nos. 1 & 2 insurance company to make the payment of claim of Rs. 1,72,800/- along with compensation and the litigation expenses besides any other relief for which the complainant is found entitled.

2.                Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed their written statement. The OP Nos. 1 & 2 filed their joint written statement whereas the OP No. 3 & OP No. 4 filed their separate written statements.

3.           The OP Nos. 1 & 2 averred that the complainant had got insured his agricultural land situated at village/notified area of village Chhapar (98), Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri with the answering OP vide policy No. OG-21-1207-5015-00009063 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, covering the crop season of Kharif 2020 for the cultivation of cotton and providing insurance cover at individual farm level to crop covering losses due to occurrence of localized perils/calamities viz. landslide, hailstorm and inundation affecting part of a notified unit or a plot. It is averred that as per report of survey, there has been no loss in cotton crop due to inundation in the year 2020. It is averred that the above mentioned policy for Kharif 2020 was issued by the OP company under the Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, therefore, the said policy was to be governed and operated strictly as per terms and conditions as envisaged under the said Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. It is averred that the insured crop was cotton and the insurance company received the claim intimation and a survey for the loss of crop was conducted and no inundation was found and hence, there was/is no loss to the cotton crop. Therefore, it is averred that no claim is payable and the complainant is not entitled to get any claim amount. Accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought by the OPs.

4.                The OP No. 3 in its written statement averred that as per scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, Kharif 2020 crop of complainant measuring area 2.7 hectare situated at village Chhapar was insured with OP No.1 and the premium for insurance amounting to Rs. 11,008.57 ps was paid by the OP No. 3 on behalf of complainant to the OP No. 1 by debiting this account to KCC loan account of complainant. It is averred that the contract of insurance came into existence between the complainant and the OP Nos. 1 & 2 and hence, the OP No. 3 is not liable to pay any amount on account of said insurance or any other amount to the complainant as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 3 and accordingly dismissal of complaint has been sought by the OP No. 3.

5.                The OP No. 4, through its written statement also pleaded that the answering OP is a collaborator who borne the amount of insurance as per notification of Haryana Government. It is averred that the complainant is not a consumer, hence, he cannot claim any amount from the answering OP. The answering OP had sent the record to the OP No. 1 after preparing the yield data of Kharif 2020 and denied other allegations of complaint in toto and prayed for dismissal of complaint against answering OP No.4.

6.                In the evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex. CW-1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence on 7.6.2022.

7.                On the other hand, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit as Ex. RW-2/A and documents as Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-4, the OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit as Ex. RW-1/A and the OP No 4 by making a statement before the Commission requested to read his written statement as evidence also on behalf of OP No. 4. All the OPs closed their evidence on 23.11.2022.

8.                We have heard the arguments of representative/learned counsel for 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 representative/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.

9.           We have observed that the OPs have not denied the averments of complaint regarding crop insurance under Pradhan Fasal Bima Yojna, premium paid thereof by the complainant to the OP No.1 through the OP No. 3 bank and the action taken by the OPs on intimation by the complainant regarding loss. In their written statement, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 have clearly mentioned that the insurance company received the claim intimation and a survey for the loss of crop was conducted and no inundation was found and hence, there is no loss to the cotton crop. It is also clearly mentioned by the OP Nos. 1 & 2 in their written statement that no claim is payable and the complainant is not entitled to get any claim amount.

10.              To prove the above contention, the learned counsel for OP Nos. 1 & 2 drawn the attention towards Assessment Report (Ex. R-2) which is on Proforma-3 of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and which is duly signed by the complainant himself and also signed by Block Agriculture Officer, Dadri-II. It stands established from the perusal of said document (Ex. R-2) that on inspection by the committee members at site, “Inundation” was not found in 0.8 Hectare of land of complainant and crop loss was Nil. So, it is very much clear that the said report is legally valid in the eyes of law and according to this report, no loss was suffered by the complainant to his crop and hence, the OPs cannot be held liable to pay any compensation to the complainant for insuring the crop of complainant.

11.              In view of above discussion, finding and observations, we find no merit in the complaint of complainant and any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of any of the OPs. The present complaint is therefore, not maintainable in the present form and hence, we dismiss the present complaint of complainant with no orders as costs, being not proved.

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

13.              File be consigned after due compliance.

 

Announced.

Dated: - 20.1.2023

 

 

                         (Shashi Kiran Panwar)                                    (Manjit Singh Naryal)

                              Member                                                  President,

                                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                         Redressal Commission, Charkhi Dadri.