Haryana

StateCommission

A/988/2019

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.S.LAMBA - Opp.Party(s)

SACHIN OHRI

04 Oct 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, Panchkula

 

                                                         First Appeal No.803 of 2019

Date of Institution:13.09.2019

                                                               Date of Decision: 04.10.2021

 

State Bank of India, Sirsa Chandigarh Road, Village Sanyana, Distt. Fatehabad through its Branch Manager

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      R.S. Lamba (aged about 71 years) S/o Sh.Partap Singh R/o Village  Daulatpura, Distt.Hissar.

2.      Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Limited, S.C.O. 156-159, IInd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 160009 through its  Branch Head.

…..Respondent

First Appeal No.988 of 2019

Date of Institution: 14.11.2019

Date of Decision: 04.10.2011

 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Limited, S.C.O. 156-159, 2nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 160009 through  Authorized Signatory, Sarpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Assistant Manager Legal, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 156-159, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. R.S. Lamba (aged about 71 years) S/o Sh.Partap Singh R/o Village  Daulatpura, Distt.Hissar.
2. State Bank of India, Sirsa Chandigarh Road, Village Sanyana, Distt. Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

…..Respondents

 

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

 

Present:              Shri Ashe Kumar Goyal, Advocate counsel for the appellant in appeal No.803 of 2019 and respondent No.2 in appeal No.988 of 2019.

Shri Hitender Kansal, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.1 in both the appeals.

Shri Sachin Ohri, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.2 in appeal No.803 of 2019 and appellant in appeal No.988 of 2019.

 

                                                   O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

(The matter has been heard through virtual hearing.)

As per order dated 27.09.2021 contained in letter No.1578, I am conducting these proceedings singly.

2.      Vide this order above mentioned two appeals, bearing First Appeal Nos.803 of 2019 and 988 of 2019, will be disposed of, as both are directed against order dated 17.07.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (in short ‘District Forum’).

3.      Delay in filing the appeals are condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay in both the appeals.

4.      The brief facts given rise for the disposal of the present appeals are as such, the complainant have 20 ½  acres of agriculture land in his name in village Daulatpur, Distt. Hisar and he has got  Krishi Credit Card from opposite party No.1( State Bank of India) vide account No.65038276019.  The crop of the complainant was insured under the scheme of PMFBY and the premium was got deducted from the bank account of the complainant.  Neither insurance policy was issued to him nor any information was given by OP No.1 to him. Further submitted that  Kharif crop for the years 2017 was damaged and survey was got done by the bank and other officer of the Govt. as well as other agency.   The OP No.1 has not paid the claim amount despite several visits and completion of formalities.    It was the duty of the bank to make the claim deposit in the bank account of the complainant. An amount of Rs.20,000/- per acre as claim has been assessed and as such, the complainant was entitled for the claim of Rs.4,10,000/- for the insured land of 20 ½ acres. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

5.      O.Ps. filed separate written statement of defence, controverting his averments.  O.P.No.1 alleged in preliminary objections that the present complaint was false, vague, illegal, arbitrary, baseless and vexatious and same has been filed just to harass and humiliate the OP No.1 have been raised. If the complainant has suffered any loss of crop, the Bajaj Alliance Company was liable to pay the compensation.  The premium amount of the complainant alongwith other farmers was remitted to OP NO.2 on 14.08.2017 and the data of the farmers was fed on online of PMFBY portal  by the branch. The OP NO.2 has accepted the premium without any objection.  On 14.06.2018 after a gap of more than 10 months, the OP No.2 remitted that premium of the complainant to OP No.1. The amount was returned on 14.06.2018 and claim amount of Rs.43,66,546/- was paid on 18.06.2018.  The insurance companies have received the premium without any objection and if any claim arises then they repudiate the insurance claim on technical grounds.  The premium has been returned after a gap of 10 months without assigning any reason.  It was denied that Kharif crop for the year 2017 was damaged.  It was also denied that complainant has suffered loss of crop.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.

6.      O.P. No.2 also  resisted the complaint by filing written statement of defence.   Various preliminary objections about cause of action, maintainability, estoppel, concealment of true facts and jurisdiction etc. have been raised.  On merits, it was submitted that the complainant was not insured with it as portal entry/data was not made by the bank in Government of India Portal.  The OP No.2 has also refunded the excess premium to OP No.1. The OP No.2 was not liable for making the payment of any compensation to him.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2.

7.               After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 17.07.2019 and directed the OP No.2 for making a payment of Rs.4,10,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date when the insurance claim was credited in the account of other insured farmers of village Daulatpur for damage of Kharif 2017.  Learned District Forum further directed the O.P No.1 to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss suffered by the complainant due to deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1. The learned District Forum further directed the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.

8.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, opposite parties have preferred  above-said appeals as mentioned above.

9.      This argument have been advanced by Sh.Ashe Kumar Goyal, the learned counsel for the appellant in appeal No.803 of 2019 and respondentNO.2 in appeal No.988 of 2019, Sh. Hitender Kansal, counsel for the respondent No.1 in both the cases as well as Sh. Sachin Ohri, the  learned counsel for the respondent No.2 in appeal No.803 of 2019 and appellant in appeal No.988 of 2019. With their kind assistance the entire records had been properly perused and examined.

10.    Learned counsel for the O.P.-appellant-SBI vehemently argued that  the  complainant did not suffer any loss of crop and if complainant suffered loss of crop and entitled for claim, then the OP NO.2-Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. is liable to pay the compensation as the premium amount payable on behalf of complainant was paid to the OP No.2-Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. on 14.08.2017 and same was accepted by the company without any objection.     The refund of insurance premium amount by the OP No.2 after retaining the same for 10 months is not justified. The insured crop of the complainant was damaged at the time when the amount of premium was with OP No.2.  Thus the OP NO.2-­ Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. is liable to pay the compensation.

11.    The learned counsel for the respondent no.1-complainant in both the appeals vehemently argued that complainant have 20 ½  acres of agriculture land in his name in village Daulatpur, Distt. Hisar and he has obtained  Krishi Credit Card from opposite party No.1( State Bank of India) vide account No.65038276019 and has also taken loan on the above said agricultural land. The Govt. of India   has launched Crop Insurance Policy under the scheme PMFBY and under the above said scheme, premium was deducted by the OP NO.1 from the KCC account of the complainant, but, neither insurance policy was issued nor any information given by OP No.1.   It was further argued that  Kharif crop for the years 2017 was damaged and survey was got done by the bank and other officer of the Govt. as well as other agency.   Claimant filed claim, but the OPs has not paid the claim amount despite several visits and completion of formalities.    An amount of Rs.20,000/- per acre as claim has been assessed  by the assessing team and same has been paid to the insured farmers for the damaged crop, and as such, the complainant was entitled for the claim of Rs.4,10,000/- for the insured land of 20 ½ acres.

12.    Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 in appeal No.803 of 2019 and appellant in appeal No.988 of 2019 vehemently argued that complainant was not insured with it as portal entry/data was not made by the bank in Government of India Portal.  The OP No.2 had refunded the excess premium to OP No.1. The OP No.2 is not liable for making the payment of any insurance claim and compensation to him.

13.     It is admitted fact that complainant have 20 ½  acres of agriculture land in his name in village Daulatpur, Distt. Hisar and he has obtained  Krishi Credit Card from opposite party No.1 (State Bank of India) vide account No.65038276019.  It is also admitted that the crop of the complainant was insured under the scheme of PMFBY as premium was deducted by the bank in the account of the complainant.    It is also admitted that neither insurance policy was issued to complainant nor any information was given by OP No.1 to the complainant.  It is also admitted that premium was deducted from the account of the complainant by the bank, which was remitted to Bajaj Allianz General Insurance on 14.08.2017 and after ten months  Insurance company remitted back the amount of the premium to the bank.    

14.     Since the premium was deducted by OP No.1-Bank and was accepted by-Bajaj Allianz without any objection on 14.08.2017 and after ten months why insurance company is taking plea that complainant’s crop was not insured.   

15.    The insurance company has remitted the premium amount  to the bank on 14.06.2018 after gap of approximate 10 months without assigning any reason.  Since, it was admitted case that insurance company has remitted premium to bank as mentioned in para No.1 of the written statement of defence filed by OP No.1.  The insurance company has already kept the money for 10 months. Since, the premium was returned after the claim arise and it was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. As such the learned District Commission has after analyzing the entire oral as well as documentary evidence has rightly come to the conclusion to award the compensation to the complainant for more than Rs.4,70,000/- and no fault could be found with the order passed by the learned District Commission, which is well reasoned and legally sustainable.  For entering into unnecessary litigation, both the appeals stands dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/- each, which shall be paid to the complainant-respondent No.1.

16.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- each deposited at the time of filing of the present appeal  bearing No.803 of 2019 and F.A. No.988 of 2019 be refunded to the complainant-respondent No.1.

17.    The original order be attached with First Appeal No.803 of 2019 and certified copy be attached with First Appeal No.988 of 2019.

 

October 04th, 2021                                        Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                                                                 Judicial Member                                                                                            Addl.Bench          

S.K.(Pvt. Secy.)