Haryana

StateCommission

A/298/2019

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

Versus

RAGHBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

GEETA GULATI

24 Jan 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

  Date of Institution: 29.03.2019

                Date of final hearing: 24.01.2023

                                                 Date of pronouncement: 27.03.2023

                                                                                                

FIRST APPEAL No.298 of 2019

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., 49W, Model Town, Near Shanti Mission Hospital, Delhi Road, Hisar, through its Authorized Signatory, Senior Executive Legal, Jai Singh.

 

                                                                                       .….Appellant

Through counsel Ms. Geeta Gulati, Advocate

 

 

Versus

 

 

1.      Raghbir Singh, aged 58 years, son of Sh. Manphool.

2.      Nirmala Widow of Shri Mahabir Singh son of Sh. Manphool     Singh, both residents of Village Mirkan, Tehsil and District         Hisar.    

…..Respondents

Through counsel Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate

3.      Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch Village Ladwa, Tehsil and District Hisar through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                        …..Respondent

Through counsel Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate

CORAM:    Mr. S.P. Sood, Judicial Member.  

                   Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Ms. Geeta Gulati, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr. Bhim Singh, Advocate alongwith Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2.

                   Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate for respondent No.3.

 

O R D E R

 

S.P. Sood, Judical Member:

 

          The brief facts giving rise for disposal of the present case are that the complainants have obtained Kisan Credit Card Schemes from the opposite party No.2 Bank under KCC Loan Account No.81041700080265 and 8104010082299 respectively for the purpose of obtaining better yield. It was also submitted that opposite party No.2 bank had deducted a considerable premium amount from the loan account of the complainants under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna to insure their crops and the same was remitted to opposite party No.1. However, no such formal policy/cover note with regard to Fasal Bima of their crops were issued to them either of the opposite parties. It was further submitted that due to heavy rain in the region, entire crop of complainants got damaged and virtually destroyed. Thereafter, the complainants approached the opposite party No.2 and informed them about the loss of their crops, who in turn asked them to contact opposite party No.1. When the complainants contacted the opposite party No.1, the officials of opposite party No.1 assured them that their claim would be reimbursed very soon. But lastly, their claim was repudiated on the ground that they had sown cotton crop instead of paddy crop which is totally false, because the factum of sowing of paddy crop was very much evident in the Khasra Girdawari of the land of complainants for the relevant period and as such to show that any alleged cotton crop was sown is wrong. Hence, there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, hence the complaint.

2.      Upon notice of the complaint, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their written version separately.

In its written version, opposite party No.1 raised preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction, complainants having suppressed the material facts etc. and requested to dismiss the complaint. On merits it was submitted after intimation of damage of insured crop, the opposite party No.1 has assessed and quantified the loss suffered to the claimant and has accordingly paid the assessed amount of Rs.8,604/- to the claimant on 25.01.2017 for localized claim. It was denied that the entire crop of complainants got damaged due to heavy rains. In fact, as per the surveyor report, out of 0.4 hectare of land insured by the farmer under the alleged insurance policy, 0.75 hectare of land was actually affected due to inundation. Rest of allegations made in the complaint were denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.      Opposite party No.2 raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, complainants having suppressed the material facts etc. and requested to dismiss the complaint. On merits, it was stated that the banks were supposed to ensure that all branches deduct/debit the premium from farmer’s account and remit the same to insurance companies well within the stipulated time. All the loanee farmers have to be compulsorily covered under the said scheme as per the mandatory guidelines of the scheme. Hence, the respondent being a public sector bank was duty bound to follow the rules of Govt. of India. Therefore, in the ambit of mandatory implementation of the scheme launched by Govt. of India, the said charges against the crop insurance were charged from the complainants. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on his part.

4.      The District Commission, Hisar after taking into consideration entire material available on record allowed the complainant vide order dated 22.01.2019, whereby it held as under:

                   “Opposite party No.1 is directed for making a payment of Rs.46,250/- to each of the complainants after deducting the compensation which has already been paid. The opposite party No.1 is further directed for making a payment of Rs.5100/- to the complainant on account of compensation. This order be complied with within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order.”

 

5.      Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, Hisar, opposite party No.1-appellant has preferred this appeal before the State Commission.

6.      The arguments were advanced by Ms. Geeta Gulati, Advocate for the appellant, by Mr.Bhim Singh, Advocate alongwith Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate for the respondents No.1 & 2 and by Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate for respondent No.3. With their kind assistance entire appeal record has been properly perused and the other record of district commission was also examined.

7.      It is not disputed that the complainants were KCC account holder and the opposite party No.1 had issued insurance of paddy crop of the complainants for the year 2016 and premium in this regard was also debited from the account of complainants. It is also not disputed that the insured crop was inspected by company surveyor namely Sh. Jasbir Singh and Block Agriculture Officer, Hisar (Ex.R10). Perusal of inspection report brings that 1.85 acres of land of each of the complainants was found to be damaged due to inundation. It is also evident from the survey reports, that the complainants have suffered a loss of 100% of the insured crop on account of inundation. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the case of complainants was fully covered under localized calamites. Moreover, OP No.1 has admitted that the case of complainants fall within the purview of localized calamities as provided in sub-para D of para No.4 of the notification dated 17.06.2016 (Ex.R11). The procedure for settlement of claims of the farmers has been laid down in the Operational guidelines issued under ‘Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna’ placed on record as Ex.R-12. As per condition No.II of Serial No.XV under the heading ‘Localized Risks’ it is laid down that when the affected area is limited upto25% of total insured area in the notified insurance unit, the losses of eligible farmers would be assessed individually, provided they have paid premium prior to occurrence of insurance peril. A perusal of survey report placed on record as Ex.R-10 reveals that village inundation is 15% to 20% i.e. less than 25% of notified insured unit. Accordingly, the loss of complainants was to be assessed individually. We are of the considered opinion that the procedure adopted by the Ops for assessment of loss of insured crop of complainants is not in accordance with the insurance policy. Hence, deficiency in service on the part of OPs is clearly proved.

8.      The learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant against opposite party No.1. The State Commission finds no reason or ground to interfere with the order of learned District Commission. Hence, the appeal being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.

9.      Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid Order.

10.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

11.    File be consigned to records.

 

 

Pronounced on:

 

 

 

                                                                                                            S.P.Sood

                                                                                                            Judicial Member                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench            

 

 

 

S.C Kaushik,

Member        

Addl. Bench

 

 

Pvt.Secy.