Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/160/2022

Ramphal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, Bajaj Allianz - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rambir Sangwan

23 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI. 

 

                Complaint No.         160 of 2022.                  Date of Institution:  13.06.2022

                Date of order:        23.04.2024   

 

Ramphal S/o RamSarup Village Chhapar, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri PH-9813662668

..Complainant.

                    VERSUS

1.Manager, Bajaj Allianz House, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006.

2.Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz, Branch Charkhi Dadri office Agriculture Department, New Anaj Mand, Agriculture Department office, Chhirya Road, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri.

3. Branch Manager, Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Chhapar, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri.

4. Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Agriculture and Farmar Welfare Department, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri.

                              ..Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER THE OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

 

Before-      Hon’ble Manjit Singh Naryal……………PRESIDENT.

Hon’ble Dharam Pal Rauhilla……………MEMBER.

 

Argued by:   Sh. Rambir Sangwan,Adv. for complainant.

            Sh. Rahul Sheoran, Adv. for OP no.1&2.

            Sh. Sunil Dureja, Adv. for OP no.3.

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

O R D E R

 

1.     Complainant (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) with the averments that he owns and possesses agriculture land, situated in the revenue state of village Chhapar, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri. It is averred that the complainant got insured his Cotton crop from the OP no.1&2 and accordingly, the OP no.1&2 issued receipt No. 04010620104120884901, policy no. OG-21-1207-5015-00009063 and Farmer ID  106781665. It is averred that the said crop of complainant was insured by the OP no.1&2 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY). It is averred that the crop of complainant got fully damaged upto 80% due to heavy rain. Consequent there upon the complainant completed all the requirement of OPs in order to get the claim of his damaged crop but to no effect. The grievance of the Complainant remained unheard and the complainant was left with no other option but to send a legal notice to the OP no.1&2 dated 20.09.2021 through his counsel. The same was received by the opposite parties, however, despite receiving the said legal notice, the opposite party no.1&2 deliberately neglected and evaded to comply with the same. Accordingly, OP no.1&2 did not pay the amount of crop loss and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1&2. Due to the act and conduct of the OP no.1&2, the complainants have suffered a loss of Rs.4,78,570/-.  Hence, the complainant has come to this Commission and filed the present complaint with the prayer to direct the OP no.1&2 for compensation of Rs.4,78,570/- on account of loss of crop alongwith compensation on account of harassment and litigation expenses etc.
2.     Upon notice, the OP No. 1&2 appeared and filed its written statement alleging therein that the complainant had got insured his agricultural land situated at village/notified area of village Chhapar (98), Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri 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 as per localized claim, there was no intimation received for cotton crop by the answering OP and therefore, no survey was conducted to assess the loss, if any. As per the report, there was no shortfall/damage in the cotton crop under notified “Chhapar (98), therefore, the claim was not payable. Moreover, it is averred that there was no shortfall in yield in the given in the season Kharif 2020 for cotton crop, so, no claims were paid. It is averred that the claimant has not suffered any loss, therefore, no such claim is made out and averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1&2.  It is averred that there stands no liability of the OP Company and the claim is not payable to the complainant. Accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought by the OP no.1&2. 

3.     The OP no.3 in written statement has submitted that he took the insurance policy from OP no.1&2 under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna and a sum of Rs. 21,609.42 paise was debited in his account on 31.07.2020 on account of payment of premium. The answering respondent has nothing to do with the assessment and payment of claim/compensation. In view of the above there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.3 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua OP no.3.
4. 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 got preparing the report of loss to crops due to hevy rain 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.4.
5.     The complainant Ramphal in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and evidence of the complainant was closed on 17.07.2023.
6.     Sh. Anand Kumar, SA made a statement on 10.11.2023 that written statement filed be read in his evidence and closed his evidence.
7.     Counsel for the OP no.1&2 made a statement on 24.01.2024 that written statement filed be read in his evidence and closed his evidence
8.     Sh. Ashwani Kumar Solanki, Branch Manager,SHGB, Chhapar  has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and documents Ex.RW3/B and Ex.RW3/C and evidence of OP no.3 was closed on 24.01.2024

5.      We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

6.      In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has got insured his Kharif crop from OP no.1&2.  The complainant has placed on record the photo copy of bank statement account Ex.C2 to prove that Rs.21,609.42/- were deducted as premium of insurance under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna.

7.      The complainant by way of present complaint have claimed Rs.4,78,570/- from the OP no.1&2 as compensation on account of loss of KHARIF crop, on account of rendering deficient services, for causing mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

8.      Now the main question arises for consideration before this Commission is whether the complainants are entitled to get any amount from the OPs or not?

9.       We have perused the contents of the complaint very carefully. The complainant has moved an application Ex.C8 before the Deputy Director Agriculture Office, Charkhi Dadri but in this application, the complainant has not mentioned as to how much loss he has suffered due to damage of crop.

11.      No photograph has been placed on record by the complainant in support of his case. The counsel for the complainant placed on record assessment report which was duly signed by Block Agriculture Officer, Loss Assessor company and complainant. Inspection report of the committee inter alia contains following information:-

(a) Area of loss (in hectare)- 0.8 hectare

(b) Reason for crop loss- No water lodging

(c) Loss of crop (in percentage)- No loss

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs, thus, onus heavily lies on the complainant to prove his case against the OPs by leading cogent, convincing and concrete evidence which the complainant has failed to produce any document in regard to loss of crop.  Thus, in the facts and circumstances as discussed above, we hold that the present complaint has no merit and the same deserves dismissal.

12.     With these findings, the present complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

13.     This order be communicated to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced.

Dated:-23.04.2024