Haryana

StateCommission

A/129/2020

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RICHPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH VERMA

27 Feb 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    129 of 2020

Date of Institution:  14.02.2020

Date of Decision:    27.02.2020

 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 156-159, Sector 9, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager/Divisional Manager, Branch Office, Chandigarh.

 

Now through its authorized person Saurav Khullar, Senior Executive Claims (Legal) and authorized person, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 156-159, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

 

 

Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

 

Versus

 

1.      Richpal Singh, aged 60 years, son of Sh. Kanha Ram, resident of Village Khajuri Jatti, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

 

Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

2.      Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Birdhana, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

 

 

Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.1

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                  

   

 

Present:     Shri Rajesh Verma, counsel for the appellant.

                            

 

                            

O R D E R

 

 T.P.S. MANN, J.

 

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager/Divisional Manager, Branch Office, Chandigarh-opposite party No.2 has filed the instant appeal against the order dated 29.10.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad, whereby, complaint instituted by Richpal Singh-complainant was allowed by holding that the complainant had been able to prove deficiency on the part of opposite party No.2 in rendering service to the complainant.  Accordingly, opposite party No.2 was directed to grant an amount of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant as insurance claim in lump sum and further directed to make payment of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as compensation and litigation expenses. The order was to be complied with within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the order or else the amount would fetch an interest @ 8% per annum for the default period.

2.      According to the complainant, he had taken loan for an amount of Rs.3,68,000/- from opposite party No.1-State Bank of India under the KCC scheme by mortgaging agricultural land measuring 8 kanals in Village Khajuri Jatti, District Fatehabad and 36 kanals 2 marlas in Village Jhalnia, District Fatehabad. As the complainant had taken loan under KCC scheme, his land was insured under the Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY). Under the PMFBY, an amount of Rs.3,381/- was deducted by opposite party No.1-bank on 29.7.2017 for insurance of Kharif crop 2017. The complainant cultivated the narma crop in the abovesaid insured land and when the crop was insured, narma crop was standing in his fields. The complainant never cultivated paddy crop in the said land as it was not fit for paddy cultivation. The insured Kharif crop of 2017 was damaged but the insurance claim not credited in his account whereas all the neighbours had already received the compensation. In this regard, the complainant contacted the opposite parties and after examining the documents, he was informed that the compensation of the damaged crop would be credited in his account shortly. However, the compensation amount was not credited in his account despite his visiting the opposite parties. On 25.6.2018, opposite party No.2-Insurance Company refunded the abovesaid premium amount of Rs.3,381/- to the complainant in the account of opposite party No.1. On account of the abovesaid act of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered loss of Rs.91,000/- by way of damage to the insured crop. This act of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service. As such, the complainant was entitled to receive compensation along with interest @ 18% and Rs.50,000/- by way of litigation expenses.

3.      Upon being served, opposite party No.1-bank appeared and resisted the complaint by filing a written version, wherein, various preliminary objections were raised. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant did not submit his Aadhar Card in OP bank inspite of repeated requests. The total amount of Rs.9,54,575/- of 344 farmers for insurance of Kharif crop of 2017 was paid by opposite party No.1-bank to opposite party No.2-Insurance Company, which included the amount of Rs.3,381/- of the complainant. Opposite party No.1 intimated the Insurance Company regarding not submitting the Aadhar card by the complainant through e-mail on 7.8.2017. However, the amount was debited from the account of the complainant and paid to opposite party No.2-Insurance Company and the Insurance Company accepted the premium and retained the same for 11 months, which showed that the crop of the complainant was insured. The premium amount was retained by the Insurance Company for a period of 11 months and in the meanwhile the crops reportedly suffered damages. On 25.6.2018, the Insurance Company returned the entire premium amount of 124 farmers, which was paid to it by opposite party No.1-bank and retained by opposite party No.2-Insurance Company for a period of 11 months. The act of retaining the premium amount along with other farmers for 11 months, amounting to acceptance of premium by the Insurance Company. However, when it came to the notice of Insurance Company that the crops had suffered damages and there was likelihood of paying claim for the same, the Insurance Company abruptly and without any communication, credited the premium amount to the account of the bank so as to dishonestly avoid its liability for paying insurance claim. The premium amount was retained by the Insurance Company for the entire period of Kharif crop till its harvesting. Therefore, the bank was not liable to compensate the complainant in any manner.

4.      Opposite party No.2-Insurance Company also resisted the complaint by filing separate written version, wherein, various preliminary objections were raised. On merits, it was stated that the complainant had never paid premium amount to the Insurance Company or got the cotton crop insured from the Insurance Company. No amount of premium was ever received by Insurance Company from the complainant and as such he was not insured by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company was not at all liable to indemnify the complainant as the complainant was not a consumer of the Insurance Company. There was no deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company in rendering services to the complainant and as such the complaint against the Insurance Company was liable to be dismissed.

5.      In his evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW-1/A, affidavit of Ram Sarup as Annexure C-2/A and documents as Annexures C-1 to C-6. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Jai Singh, Senior Executive as Annexure R-1 and documents as Annexures R-2 to R-4. Opposite party No.2 also tendered in evidence affidavit of Sunil Kumar, Branch Manager as Exhibit RW1/A and documents as Exhibits R-1 to R-5.

6.      As mentioned above, learned District Consumer Forum, allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- as insurance claim in lump sum and Rs.7,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that the premium for insurance of the Kharif crop of 2017 was never received from the complainant and as such the complaint preferred by the complainant was not tenable. However, the bank has taken specific stand that the insurance premium amounting to Rs.3,381/- of the complainant for Kharif crop of 2017 was paid to the Insurance Company on 31.7.2017. Further, the said amount of premium was retained by the Insurance Company for a period of 11 months and thereafter returned on 25.6.2018. Therefore, the complainant has rightly claimed that the insurance premium of the complainant for Kharif crop of 2017 was paid by the bank to the Insurance Company. The insurance premium remained with the Insurance Company. Therefore, the stand of the Insurance Company that no insurance premium was received is without any basis.

8.      It has come on record that in the meeting held on 2.7.2019 under the Chairmanship of Director General, Agricultural Department, Haryana, it was held that the case wherein banks had not entered the data on portal but the premium deposited with Insurance Company in time and the same not returned by the Insurance Company in time then the Insurance Company would have to pay the insurance claim. As per affidavit (Annexure CW-2/A) of Ram Sarup, brother of the complainant, he had taken KCC loan on his agricultural land situated in Village Jhalnia and premium of Rs.2,827/- was deducted from his account on 31.7.2017 for insuring Kharif crop of 2017 under PMFBY and in the said land, he had cultivated cotton crop, which was also damaged and on account of the same, he had received Rs.69,457/- on 14.6.2018 by way of insurance claim. However, no amount of insurance claim was credited in the account of the complainant for the damage of his insured cotton crop for the year Kharif 2017.

9.      In view of the above, no fault can be found with the order passed by learned District Consumer Forum, whereby, it was held that the cotton crop belonging to the complainant for the year Kharif 2017 was damaged in Village Jhalnia and compensation was required to be disbursed by the Insurance Company for damage of the insured cotton crop.

10.    Resultantly, the appeal is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal be released in favour of the complainant against proper receipt and identification subject to appeal/revision, if any, in accordance with law.

 

 

Announced 27.02.2020

(Ram Singh Chaudhary) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

  D.R.