Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/148/2021

Reena - Complainant(s)

Versus

State of Haryana through Collector - Opp.Party(s)

Rajbir Singh

11 Dec 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

 

                                                Complaint Case No. 148 of 2021

                                                Date of Institution: 06.07.2021

                                                Date of Decision:       11.12.2024

 

Rina wife of Ajit Singh resident of village Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil & Distt. Charkhi Dadri

                                                          ….Complainant.

                            

1. State of Haryana through Collector Charkhi Dadri.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,  Bajaj Allianz House, Airport Road,  Yerawada, PUNE, - 411006 through its Manager.
3. Deputy Director/Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Department of Agriculture  & Farmer Welfare Charkhi Dadri, Loharu Road, Charkhi Dadri.

                                                                             …....Opposite Parties

                   COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before: -      Hon’ble Shri Manjit Singh Naryal, President

                        (Proceeded under Section 64 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Present:       Shri Vikas Sheoran, Adv. for complainant.

                   Shri Rajender Verma, Adv. for OP no.2.

                   Sh. Anand Kumar, SA on behalf of OP no.1&3.

 

ORDER:-

                Brief fact of the case are that the complainant is owner and in possession of the agricultural land situated in revenue estate of village Charkhi, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri, detail of which is given in Para No. 2 of the present complaint.  It is averred that the complainant got insured his Kharif 2020 cotton crop sown in 3.64 Hectare land from the OP no.2 through CSC Centre vide application receipt No.0401062000406229678 and paid premium of Rs.14,841.19 ps on 21.07.2020 and the Government also gave Rs.26714.14 ps being premium share on behalf of farmer in PMFBY (Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana) scheme. It is averred that the said cotton crop of complainant as well as of some other villagers were fully damaged due to heavy rain.  Intimation in his regard was given to the OPs. Complainant also received a message from OP no.3 as “Dear Reena survey for your application for loss has been done successful on 23.8.2020. It is worth to mention here that in above inspection the agricultural department shown the area as 0.8 hectare where as complainant cultivated and got insured cotton crop of 9 acre of land (3.64 hectare) as she paid premium to OP no.2 . It is further submitted that the complainant gave an application in written to CM Window vide complaint no. CMOFF/N/2020/098192 in which SDO, Agriculture Department mentioned in the report that the CIP Portal for insurance by CSC does not match with attached land documents, hence rejected stating- “Land Survey Number mentioned against application no.040106200042622967801 not found in attached land documents.” Farmer premium remitted was also refunded. No claim is payable in absence of insurable interest.  The amount of premium deposited was refunded through NEFT on 24.12.2020 in her bank account. The complainant completed all the requirement of OPs in order to get the claim of his damaged crop, which was duly insured under Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, but the OP refused to make any payment of claim amount to the complainant. It is averred that this act of refusing to grant compensation for damaged Kharif 2020 cotton crop of complainant, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the complainant seeks directions against the OPs to pay the sum assured amount of Rs. 2,96,823.8/-along with interest, compensation and the litigation expenses besides any other relief, to which the complainant is found entitled.

2.            Upon notice, the OP no.3 appeared and filed their written statement and took some preliminary objections that complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Commission and the complaint is liable to be dismissed etc. It is averred that as per clause No. 17.7.4 of operational guideline of PMFBY: -

“Insurance company retains the right to accept or reject insurance proposal (s) within 15 days/30 days of receipt of proposal/application for loanee/non loanee respectively, in case proposal/application is incomplete, not accompanied by necessary documentary proof, Aadhaar Number or Aadhaar Enrolment Number/Slip or insurance premium the proposal/application will be rejected and the insurance company will fully refund the collected premium to the proposer/applicant”.

 

        Accordingly, an automated message was sent to mobile number provided by the customer, to submit proper required documents within 15 days at the CSC Centre.  It is averred that the application submitted by the complainant was rejected as survey number given in portal data does not match with farmer’s land record and hence, premium received by the insurance company was refunded to the complainant on 24.12.2020.  It is further averred that when the crop was not insured, there is no question to pay any claim to the complainant.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and the complainant is not entitled for any claim and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

 3.                    The OP no.1&3 appeared and filed their written statement and averred that the answering OP is a collaborator who has borne part amount of insurance premium as per notification of Haryana Government. It is averred that the complainant is not a consumer of OP no. 1&3, hence he cannot claim any amount from the answering OP no.1&3. The answering OP no.1&3 had prepared a report of loss to crops due to heavy rain through Joint Committee as per guidelines of PMFBY, after conducting survey. It has been stated that 0.8 hectare was sown in its inspection report by the Agriculture Department and loss was 50% of the crop sown. Claim of loss are not settled by the answering OPs. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP. Accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought by the qua OP no.1&3.

4.                The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and evidence of the complainant was closed on 30.05.2023.

5.                Sh. Anand Kumar, SA on behalf of OP no.1&3 made a statement on 10.11.2023 that written statement filed be read in his evidence and closed his evidence.

6.                Counsel for the OP no.2 made a statement on 22.03.2024 that written statement filed be read in his evidence and closed his evidence

7.                 I have heard both the counsel for parties and gone through the case file thoroughly and after hearing the rival contentions of both the parties, I am of the convinced view that the present complaint has merits and the same deserves acceptance, for the reasons mentioned hereinafter.

8.             It is pertinent to draw attention to guidelines issued by Central Government for PMFBY and by Haryana Government wherein the insurance company is required to verify the details of land record etc. In this connection Clause 16 (xxix) pertaining to  “Role of insurance companies” of the notification no.1408-Agri-II(1)-2019/7280 dated 24.05.2019 issued by Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, Haryana is reproduced below:-

        “The insurance Company shall verify the date of insured farmers pertaining to area insured, area sown, address, bank account number (KYC) as provided by the banks independently on its own cost within two months of the cutoff date and in case of any correction must report to the state government failing which no objection by the insurance company at a later stage will be entertained and it will be binding on the insurance company to pay the claim.”

Hence, the OP no.2 (Bajaj Allianz Genera Insurance Company Ltd.) cannot be absolved from responsibility of verifying the credentials of the farmer.

9.                Total area was insured is 3.64 hectare for sum insured of Rs.2,98,823.80  out of which loss to the extent of 50% was on 0.8 hectare as per report of Block Agriculture Officer, Dadri-II (Annexure P2). Based on those factors the amount of the claim for cotton crop sown  0.8 hectare area and 50% loss of the same arrives at Rs.32,618/- (i.e. Rs.2,96,823.80 X 0.8/3.64 = Rs.65,236/-, 50% which is Rs.32,618/-).

10.              In view of aforesaid discussion and findings and documents placed on record and arguments advanced by both the counsel, we are of the view that cotton crop was sown on 0.8 hectare land and loss of the crop was 50% as per report of Block Agriculture Officer, Charkhi Dadri-II (Annexure P2). Hence, loss for the said crop is to be compensated to that extent only. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed. We therefore, direct the OP no.2 as under:-

i)      To pay a sum of Rs. 32,618/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 06.07.2021 till final realization, to complainant as compensation on account of 50% loss of cotton crop on 0.8 hectare land, after deducting the premium amount of Rs.14,841/- refunded to the complainant on 24.12.2020.

ii)     To pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) on account of mental agony, harassment etc.

iii)   To pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.

The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy, failing which the said amount shall also attract interest @ 9% p.a. from the defaulted period on all above amount mentioned in clause (i) to (iii) till its actual realization.

11.              If the order of this Commission is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to file execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the defaulting party will be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which shall not less than one month, but which may be extended to three years or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees, but which may be extended to Rs. one lac or with both. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs as per rules and this order be promptly uploaded on the website of this Commission. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.