Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

cc/82/2021

Shakuntala - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Bajaj Allianz House - Opp.Party(s)

Ranbir Sangwan

08 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No. 82 of 2021

                                                         Date of Institution: 5.4.2021

                                                          Date of Decision:   08.05.2024

 

Anoop Singh S/o Attar Singh, Village Dagroli, Tehsil Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri.

                                                                ….Complainant.

Versus

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Airport Road, Yerawada, PUNE, Pin Code 411006.
2. Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz, branch Charkhi Dadri, Office Agriculture Department, Loharu Road, Charkhi Dadri.
3. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri.
4. Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri.
5.  

COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019

 

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

                Hon’ble Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Present:     Sh. Parshant, Adv. for complainant.

                Sh. Rajender Verma, Adv. for OP no.1&2.

                Sh. P.K.Punia, Adv. for OP no.3.

                Sh. Anand, SA on behalf of OP no.4.

 

ORDER:-

1.            Smt. Shakuntla W/o Shri Anoop Singh & Shri Anoop Singh S/o Sh. Attar Singh had filed the present complaint. Subsequently, Smt. Shakuntla being unnecessary party was given up vide order of this Commission dated 06.04.2021 and amended title was accepted. Now ShriAnoop Singh is sole complainant.  Shri Anoop Singh (hereinafter referred to as “complainant”) had filed the present complaint against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “OPs”) with the averments that he is owner in possession of agricultural land situated in revenue estate of village Dhagroli, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri, details of which are given in para No. 2 of the present complaint. It is averred that the complainant got insured his Kharif 2019 cotton crop sown in 33 Acre land from the OP no.1 and paid premium of Rs. 20,697.32 on 11.7.2019 It is further averred that the said cotton crop of the complainant as well as of some other villagers were fully damaged. The complainant completed all the requirement of OPs in order to get the claim of his damaged crop, which was duly insured under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY). When the complainant asked about the insurance claim amount, the OP no.2&3 said that the insurance for his crop of 2019 year was not done and why the company should give you the compensation. After that  when the complainant got the details of his bank account, he found that the premium amount for kharif crop insurance for the year 2019 was deducted in favour of the company.  When the complainant shown the statement to the company, it was said that the premium amount was returned to the complainant’s account.

2.                The complainant visited the office of HDFC Bank Charkhi Dadri and office of Bajaj Allianz, respondents no. 2 and 3 when they repeatedly told that the compensation for Kharif crop cotton in the year 2019 would be given. We had got it done under the insurance scheme in which the loss of Kharif crop was estimated at 75 percent, according to which compensation works out to Rs. 24,750/- per acre  and for  33 acres of land compensation works out to Rs. 816,750/-. Claim was required to be paid to the complainant by the insurance company but OP no. 2 and 3 did not pay any amount till date.

3.                Thereafter, the complainant went to the office of the OP no. 2 and 3 but they kept avoiding the complainant by making some excuse or the other and 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 2019 cotton crop of the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

4.                Upon notice, the OP no.1&2 appeared and filed joint written statement. In their written statement, the OP no.1&2 had submitted that the farmer details were not updated by the bank on the NCIP Portal and the bank was also informed about this in time but the pending farmers details were not uploaded on the NCIP Portal. Accordingly insurance premium was refunded. 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 no.1&2 and the complainant is not entitled for any claim. Accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought by the OP no.1&2.

5.                Upon notice, the OP no.3 appeared and filed written statement. In its written statement, the OP no.3 had submitted that insurance premium amounting to Rs.20,697.32 ps. was debited in the account of the complainant on 11.07.2019 but the same was returned by insurance company with the remarks that Gawar crops is not notified in the insurance policy and as such a sum of Rs. 20,697.32 paisa was credited in the account of the complainant on 29.08.2019. Again insurance premium of Rs. 20,697.32 paisa was forwarded to the insurance company in respect of crop Kharif 2019 on 30.08.2019 but again the said amount was returned by the insurance company and the same was credited in the account of complainant on 09.11.2020 and reason for returning the amount was that the Gawar is not notified in the insurance policy. Hence it is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.3. Accordingly, dismissal of complaint was sought by the OP no.3.

6.                The OP no.4 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. 4, hence he cannot claim any amount from the answering OP no. 4. The answering OP no.4 had sent the record to the OP no.1 after preparing the report of loss to crops prepared by Joint Committee as per guidelines of PMFBY, after conducting survey wherein average yield of cotton crop in 2019 was 434.25 Kg/hect for Kalyana and 334.83 Kg/hect. for Dugroli village. 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. 4. It denotes that  there was loss to cotton crop in 2019.

7.                The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and closed his evidence on dated 08.07.2022.

                   Ld. Counsel for the complainant also tendered documents Ex.C17 in additional evidence on 28.02.2024

8.                Sh. Anand Kumar, SA, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Charkhi Dadri made a statement on 17.11.2022 that written statement filed be read in his evidence and closed the evidence

9.                The Counsel for the OP no.1&2 has filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed the evidence on 10.05.2023.

10.              The Counsel for the OP no.3 has filed affidavit Ex.RW3/A and documents Ex.R3/1 to Ex.R3/3 and closed the evidence on 21.07.2023.

11.              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.

12.           As per document viz. Girdawari (Ex.C19) in 2019 Kharif crop of cotton was grown on 8.62 acre land . In favour of his claim of loss of cotton crop, the complainant has submitted affidavits of 10 farners namely Sh. Sombir S/o Ajit age 32 years, village Dagroli, Tehsil Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri, Pawan S/o Sh. Satbir age 35 years, village Dagroli, Tehsil Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri, Meena age 38 years wife of Sh. Sanjay, Sarpanch village Dagroli, Tehsil Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri, Mahabir S/o Sh. Tara Chand, age 41 years, village Dagroli, Tehsil Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri, Ashok S/o Sh. Ajit age 30 years, village Dagroli, Tehsil Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri, Jagbir S/o Sher Singh age 54 years village Kaliyana, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri, Vandana Sarpanch Gram Panchayat village Kaliyana, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri, Dharampal S/o Amar Singh age 61 years village Kaliyana, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri, Jaivir S/o Amar Singh age 59 years, village Kaliyana, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri, Ramesh s/o Subh Ram Village Kaliyana, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri. In all the affidavits, it has been mentioned that are deponents are farmers and they affirmed that there was loss to Kharif crop cotton and loss was between 70-80% for which they were compensated by the insurance company. The loss of cotton crop was between 70-80% in village Dagroli and Kaliyana due to heavy rain. The average of the same arrives 75%. Accordingly the loss for cotton crop has been taken 75% for ascertaining the compensation.

13.              As per Annexure A1 Season 2019, sum insured of cotton crop for one hectare (equivalent to 2.471 acre) is Rs. 76,600/-. On this analogy, the sum insured for 8.62 acre land arrives at Rs.2,67,216/- and 75 % of the sum insured arrives at Rs.2,00,412/- which becomes payable to the complainant as compensation for loss of cotton crop to the extent of 75%.

14.              The OP no.1&2, insurance company has regretted the claim on the ground that the farmer details have not been updated by the bank in the NCIP Portal. While the bank i.e. HDFC Bank (OP-3) in its written statement has mentioned that the complainant had intimated that he had sown Gawar in 16 acre land and Gawar is not notified in the insurance policy. Taking this ground OP-3 has returned the insurance premium of Rs. 20,697.32 twice as the same was paid twice by the complainant.

15               It has been observed from the written statement /reply submitted by the OP-1 and OP-2 that they have taken ground of non-insurance that farmers details were not updated by the bank on NCIP Portal. Contrary the OP-3 viz. HDFC Bank has mentioned that insurance premium was refunded as complainant had sown ‘Gawar’ which is not notified crop for insurance. It shows that OP-1 & OP-2 had returned the insurance premium without application of mind and without examining the details about sowing of crop and perusing the revenue records.  The revenue records made available by the complainant reveal that cotton crop was sown on 8.62 acre of land after excluding area of school land and land on which ‘Gawar’ and other crops were sown. The OP no.1&2 should have insured the crop of cotton sown on 8.62 acre of land. The OP no.1&2 are deficient in service for not insuring the cotton crop and returning the insurance premium.

16.              In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the present complaint is partially allowed and following order is passed against the OP no.1&2:-

1. To pay Rs. 2,00,412/-  alongwith interest @9% from the date of filing of complaint i.e.05.04.2021 till its realization after deducting an amount of Rs. 20,697.32 towards insurance premium returned to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony  and Rs. 5000/- as litigation expenses.

17.              The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of this order failing which further interest @12% will be paid by the OP no.1&2 for the delayed period.

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

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

Announced.

Dated: - 08.05.2024