Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 264.
Instituted on : 27.07.2020.
Decided on : 22.02.2023.
Satyavir Singh s/o Sh.Bhagat Singh r/o VPO Nidana Tehsil Meham district Rohtak-124514.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Manager, Punjab National bank, Nidana Tehsil Meham Distt. Rohtak.
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., DDA, Agriculture Office, Rohtak.
- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. & Head Office, Bajaj Allianz House, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-411006.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. S.K.Manchanda Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh. Puneet Chahal, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is having KCC account bearing no.8887008800000052 with the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party had insured the Kharif Crop 2019(Dhan) of the complainant under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana in about 0.5 hectare land situated at Killa no.42/22. The opposite party had deducted an amount of Rs.1412.87/- from the account of complainant on dated 15.07.2019 as insurance premium. Due to hailstorm and water logging in the fields, the peddy crop was 40% damaged. Complainant applied for insurance claim under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana and the team of Agriculture department had passed the claim but lateron it came to know from the portal of company that the wrong address of the land of the complainant was mentioned, due to which claim cannot be passed in his favour. Complainant contacted the opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.1 stated that the claim will be passed by the insurance company. Thereafter complainant contacted the opposite party No.2 & 3, they told that the opposite party no.1 has wrongly mentioned the location of land of complainant, so the claim cannot be passed in favour of the complainant. Due to act and conduct of the opposite parties, complainant has suffered a great financial loss. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pass the claim amount of Rs.28526/- on account of loss of crop and Rs.20000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment total Rs.48256/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that complainant Satyavir Singh is having K.C.C. Loan A/c No.8887008800000052 with Branch office Nidana. The insurance of the crop has been done on the consent of borrower & remitted a sum of Rs.1412.87 as premium to M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. It is wrong and denied that borrower has cultivated 0.5 hectare i.e. 1.25 Acres (10 Kanals) of paddy in khasra no.42/22. The complainant has not gone through the record while filing the complaint with the Commission that khasra no.42/22 is only of two marlas (0-2) when the fard jamabandi is submitted to the bank and in latest record also it is only (0-2) marlas. How 10 kanals of paddy can be cultivated in khasra no.42/22. The complainant must check his record and inform the correct position to the Commission. The premium deducted from the A/c on account of crop insurance is remitted to the concerned company and after tallying all the figures i.e. (land, name, village) Adhar No. from which branch the premium is received) then only Co. issue policy. The company has insured the crop and if at the time of checking there is some mistake on the part of company it cannot deny its liability as the premium has been received for the crop from Nindana Branch and copy of Adhar is also submitted to the company. Company has to reconcile, check the portal and if any error is there, he has to reconcile within 2 months with branch official and then issue the policy. If no objection is raised it means particulars are correct and company has issued the policy. The insurance company cannot escape the liability raising wrong objection. The premium is paid to the company and the company has accepted the premium, checked the portal and then issued crop insurance policy. The bank is only intermediary, i.e. debits premium and remits to the insurance co. It is general tendency of the co. to escape liability of payment on one pretext or the other. Insurance company is collecting Crores of rupees as premium from banks and generally try to avoid payment of claim on one pretext or the other. The insurance company should be directed to pay claim in case there is damage of crop as per record. There is no deficiency of service on the part of respondent no.1 in the whole complaint. The insurance company be directed to pay the claim without any excuses to the insured.
3. Opposite party No.2 & 3 in their reply has submitted that the complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intentions with a view to unnecessarily harass and humiliate the answering respondent by putting forth erroneous and misleading facts. That as per the record of the answering respondent (record provided by the Bank) the complainant had got insured his agricultural land situated at village/notified area of Village Gurawar, alongwith other farmers are having their agricultural land at the same village Gurawar/notified area Gurawar, Tehsil Meham Distt. Rohtak, with the answering respondent vide Policy No OG-20-1207-5015-00004054 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, covering the crop season of Khariff 2019 for the cultivation of Paddy and providing insurance coverage for Localized Risks which is intended to provide 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. The above mentioned policy for Khariff 2019 was issued by the respondent company under the Operational Guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, therefore the said policy was to be governed and operated strictly as per terms and conditions of the above Yojana. There was intimation of loss given to the insurance company in Kharif 2019, as per data entered by the Bank in NCIP Portal the farmer has agriculture land in Village Gurawar (97). But as per survey report the IU mention is Village Nidana (98). So, there is a mis-match of IU. It is further clarified that the insurance of farmer has been done on the basis of good faith and declaration made by the bank of the farmers. If any mistake is done by the Bank of complainant, insurance company cannot be held liable for claim amount and therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that in cases where farmers are denied crop insurance due to incorrect/partial/non-uploading of their details on Portal, concerned Banks/Intermediaries shall be responsible for payment of claims to them. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.2 & 3 and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence on dated 02.05.2022. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on 21.11.2022. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 & 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, document Ex.RW2/1 to Ex.R2/10 and closed his evidence on dated 21.11.2022.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the opposite party no.2 & 3 have denied the claim of the complainant on the ground that as per data entered by the Bank in NCIP Portal the farmer has agriculture land in village Gurawar(97). But as per survey report the IU mention is village Nidana(98). So there is miss match of IU. But on the other hand, as per affidavit placed on record as Ex.RW2/A, it is submitted that the complainant had got insured his agricultural land situated at village/notified area of Village Gurawar alongwith other farmers are having their agricultural land at the same village Gurawar/notified area Gurawar. Whereas as per copy of policy Ex.RW2/2, the name of Gram Panchayat/Revenue circle is mentioned as Nidana and as per Nakal Jamabandi placed on record as Ex.R1, the land of the complainant is situated in village Nidana. Hence a wrong plea has been taken by the opposite parties. Regarding the other plea that khasra no.42/22 is of only 0-2 marlas, so the 10 kanals of paddy cannot be cultivated in that khasra. In this regard, at the time of arguments, complainant made a statement that he has inadvertently written the Killa no.42/22 in his complaint instead of 92/22. In support of the same, he has placed on record two more documents Annexure J1/A and Annexure J1/B, as per which the killa no. is 92/22. Hence a wrong plea has been taken by the opposite parties in their written statement and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 & 3. On the other hand, opposite party No.2 & 3 have charged the premium hence they are liable to pay the claim to the complainant. As per loss assessment report Ex.RW2/10, complainant has suffered 40% loss in 0.5 hectare of land. As per copy of letter Ex.RW2/9, amount of loss of per hectare is Rs.46950/-. As the land of complainant is 0.5 hectare so the loss for 0.5 hectare comes to Rs.23475/- and 40% loss of the same comes to Rs.9390/-. Hence the complainant is entitled for the claim amount of Rs.9390/- from the opposite party No.2 & 3.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 & 3 to pay a sum of Rs.9390/-(Rupees nine thousand three hundred and ninety only) towards loss of crops alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.27.07.2020 till its realization and Rs.8000/-(Rupees eight thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
22.02.2023.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member.
