Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/139/2022

Randhir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, Central Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Vikash Kumar

14 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No. 139 of 2022

                                                         Date of Institution: 27.05.2022

                                                          Date of Decision:    14.08.2024      

 

Randhir  Singh son of Sanwal Singh, resident of village Bhagwi, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri. Mobile No.9991069650.

….Complainant.

Versus

1. Manager, Central Bank of India, Bhagwi, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.  Bajaj Allianz House, Airport Road, Yerawada, PUNE-411006 through its Authorized signatory/ M.D.

 

                                                                                   …....OPs/Respondents

                   COMPLAINT UNDER THE

                   CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

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

                Hon’ble Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

 

Present:      Sh. Praveen Takshak, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh. Pawan Bansal, Adv. for OP no.1

                   Sh. Satender Ghanghas, Adv. for OP no.2.

 

ORDER:-

              

1.             Randhir Singh (hereinafter referred to as “complainant”) has filed the present complaint against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as “OPs”) with the averments that he cultivated the insured Bajra crop in agricultural land, situated in revenue estate of village Bhagwi, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri, detail of which is given in para No. 1 of the present complaint. It is averred that he got insured his Bajra crop of Kharif 2020 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna vide policy/receipt No.040106211041563627801 and insurance premium amount of Rs. 589.48 ps was debited from the complainant’s account maintained with Central Bank of India, Bhagwi. It is averred that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, insured Bajra crop was damaged. Intimation in his regard was given to the OP and survey was got conduced and report of the damage was issued by Block Agricultural officer, Dadri-I. Other villagers got the claim. But the complainant has received a sum of Rs.14,964/- instead of Rs.29,763/-. Hence a sum of Rs.14,509 is due. It is further submitted that the complainant has also served the legal notice through registered post on 04.03.2022, but the OPs did not take any action on the request of the complainant. It is averred that the complainant run from pillar to post to get the compensation of the damaged crop, but the OPs did not pay any compensation to the complainant. As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant seeks directions against the OPs to grant claim of damaged crop to the tune of Rs. 14,509/- along with interest, compensation and the litigation expenses besides any other relief which this Commission may found deem fit and proper.
2.             OP no.1 is a bank through whom payments were routed and is performa OP only. Claim is against OP no. 2 who is insurance company. The OP no.1 in written statement has submitted that he took the insurance policy from OP no. 2 under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna The answering respondent has nothing to do with the assessment and payment of claim/compensation. It is averred that no contract of insurance came into existence between complainant and the OP No. 1, hence the OP No. 1 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and accordingly, dismissal of complaint against OP No. 1 has been prayed for.
3.             The OP no. 2 in written statement has submitted that the policy bearing number OG-22-1207-5015-00011863 was issued for Pearl Millet Crop by the answering respondent under the operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. It is further submitted that complainant has not come with clean hands and have suppressed the true and material facts.

The insurance company received the claim intimation and survey was conducted and it was found that the localized claim is payable and it was found that there yield loss/shortfall in the crop. However, localized claim and yield claim are paid to the complainant through bank. Thus, answering respondent has already paid the  claim amount of Rs. 11789/- with UTR No. N0010221788298021, dated 10.01.2022 for localize claim and Rs.3175/- with UTR No. N049221840433819 dated 18.02.2022 for yield claim  to the claimant/complainant in full and final settlement of the claim.

The claim of the claimant with regard to damage of the insured crop has already been paid. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

4.             In the evidence, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex. CW-1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-7 and closed the evidence on 29.03.2023.

                        On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. RW-1/A and documents Ex. R-1 and closed the evidence on 31.01.2024.

                        On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R-2W-1/A to Ex.R-2W-1/F

5.             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 reiterated the contents of their written statement and drawn the attention of this Commission towards the documents so placed on record by the parties.
6.             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 and drawn the attention of this Commission towards document (Ex. C-1) which is jamabandi for the year 2014-2015 wherein the name of complainant Randhir son of Sanwal is mentioned.
7.             In order to prove the contents of complaint that the complainant suffered losses of Bajra crop, the learned counsel for complainant has placed on record Survey Report (Ex. C-3) duly issued by the Block Agriculture Officer, Dadri-I, it was certified by the team of the Block Agriculture Officer, Dadri that there was 70% loss of Bajra crop in village Bhagvi due to Inundation (Jalbharav).
8.             On perusal of document (Ex.R-2W-1/E), it stands established that the complainant suffered 80% losses of Bajra crop of 0.8 hectare land, which was insured by the OP under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana for Rs. 29,473.52/- and the same was destroyed due to some calamity/Inundation. Now we are to decide whether the complainant is entitled for any compensation from the OP and how much?
9.             The counsel for OP has placed on record affidavit (Ex. RW-2/A) whereby Eileen Rose Tirkey, authorized representative on behalf of OP no.2 deposed on oath that the answering OP has already paid the yield claim amount of Rs. 11,789/-with UTR No. N0010221788298021 dated 10.1.2022 and Rs.3175/- with UTR No. N049221840433819 dated 18.2.2022 to the claimant-complainant but besides this, it stands also clear that the OP no.2 did not pay the adequate claim amount to the complainant as the 0.8 hectare Bajra crop of complainant was insured for Rs. 29,473.52/-and the complainant had suffered 80% losses to his cotton crop of 0.8 hectare insured land as per Assessment report (Ex. R-2W-1/E). The disbursal of part payment of claim by the OP no.2 makes clear the fact that the claim of complainant was genuine and hence, the OP no.2 disbursed some amount into the account of complainant. In our considered view, after calculation the amount of 80% loss approximately comes to Rs. 23,578.81/-.
10.             In view of aforesaid discussion, findings and observations, we are of the considered view that as the OP no.2 failed to give the proper claim to the complainant and by disbursing the less payment of claim amounting to Rs. 14,964/-to the complainant instead of Rs. 23,578.81/-, the OP no.2 has committed negligence and deficiency in service on their part and due to this reason, the complainant had to suffer mental agony, harassment as well financial losses at the hands of OP no.2. Hence, the present complaint is allowed.

                       We, therefore, direct the OP to pay compensation of Rs. 23,579/-to the complainant as compensation on account of 80% loss (which was insured for Rs. 29,473.52/-), after deducting the claim amount of Rs. 14,964/-already paid to the complainant. It is made clear that the above ordered awarded amount shall be paid by the OP no.2 to the complainant along with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 27.05.2022 till realization of final payment.

11.                   The OP no.2 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1100/- (Rupees One Thousand One Hundred Only) on account of mental agony, harassment etc. and as litigation expenses to the complainant.

12.                     The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of receiving the copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall also attract interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its actual realization.

13.                   Certified copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.