Haryana

Ambala

CC/325/2018

Raghubir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Bajaj Allianz - Opp.Party(s)

12 Apr 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  325 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution           :   01.10.2018.

                                                          Date of decision    :   12.04.2021        

 

Raghubir Singh age 37 years son of Sh. Bachan Singh, resident of Hasanpur,P.O Naggal,  Tehsil & District Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. The Bajaj Allianz, GIC Ltd, 167/18C, Hazara Singh Building, IInd Floor, Vijay Rattan Chowk, Ambala Cantt.
2. Deputy Collector, Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, Ambala.
3. Punjab National Bank, through its Manager, Durganagar Branch, Ambala City.

     ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Mehar Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Shri R.K.Veg, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

Opposite party No.2 already exparte.

Shri Ashwani Nandra, Advocate, counsel for the OP No. 3.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. the insured amount of the crop  alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
2. To pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

                              

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a marginal farmer having his agriculture land at village Naggal bearing HB no. 280, Tehsil and District Ambala. Complainant is having an agriculture loan account bearing No.2897008800003814, with the OP No. 3.  For the year 2016-2017, the crop of the complainant was insured with the OP No.1 through OP No. 3, for which he had paid the premium. The insurance company and the Bank i.e. Ops No.1 and 3, did not provide any insurance policy/instructions/insurance cover to the complainant. He requested the Ops, many times to provide him the policy, but nothing was done by them. His crop got damaged and he requested the Ops to pay the claims amount, but the Ops up till now did not pay him the claim amount, whereas all his brothers and other villagers got their claim. On 25.09.2017 he made the representation to the OP No. 2 regarding payment of claim. The Op No.2 sent a letter No. 4390 dated 18.10.2017 to the Op No.1 mentioning therein that the complainant had sown the crop in his agriculture land situated in village Hassanpur Naggal stating therein that the claim of the farmers was rejected by saying that the premium was deducted in Naggal H.B. No.102 whereas in the letter received from the bank the H. B. No.280 and requested to allow the claim to the farmers as soon as possible. The OP No.1 received the letter from his head office Chandigarh dated 13.10.2017, for making the payment of insurance amount but the OP No.1 did not make the payment. Complainant has received a letter dated 22.11.2017 from the OP No.1 wherein it is mentioned that the farmers of the village  of the complainant i.e. Naggal Hassanpur, HB No.280, has not suffered any loss, therefore no claim is payable to the complainant (Raghubir Singh), whereas the all other farmers of the village of the complainant including his real brothers have already received the insurance claim from the concerned bank. It is  further stated that the bank concerned i.e. OP No. 3, which the deducted the premium,  has recommended to pay claim amount to the complainant, but the claim amount has yet not been paid by the Ops thus they are deficient in providing the services. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                 Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action and estoppels etc. On merits, it is further stated that the complainant has not placed on record any documents in recognition of his ownership qua the land. Even the year of Jamabandi has not been mentioned. The paddy crop of the complainant from the Kharif seasion 2016, i.e. from 17.06.2016 to 30.11.2016 which was sown in the agriculture land of the complainant, situated at village/notified areas of village Naggal, Tehsil & District Ambala, was insured with the Op No.1 vide Policy No.OG-17-1201-5015-00013717 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana , herein after referred as PMFBY, providing coverage for localized risks which is intended to provide insurance cover at individual farm level to crop losses due to occurrence of localized perils/calamities viz. landslide, hailstorm & inundation affecting part of a notified unit or a plot. As per available information, no crop for the Kharif season, 2016 was  damaged & thus the claim of the complainant is not payable. It is further stated that the insured crop is paddy & the insurance company did not receive any claim intimation, hence the claim is not payable under localizes calamities. Moreover, there is no shortfall of yield in the notified area as mentioned in the complaint by the complainant. The liberty is craved to draw your kind attention to the letter dated 22.11.2017 addressed to Op No.2 which is reply under PMFBY. It is further stated that there is no shortfall % of yield in the above notified area in the instant case and hence the claim is not payable. The complainant is not covered under the definition of Consumer Protection Act. On merits, further denying averments of the complaint prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party No.2 failed to appear before this Commission and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.11.2018.

 4.                          Upon notice, OP No. 3 appeared and filed written version, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, no cause of action, locus standi, not coming to Forum with clean hands, suppressing of true and material facts etc. On merit, it is further stated that the crop of the complainant situated at Village Naggal, HB No.280, Tehsil & District Ambala, was duly insured with the OP No.1 through the answering OP No. 3 and the insurance policy was to be issued by the Op No.1 being insurance agency, and the OP No.3 has no liability to issue Insurance Policy to the complainant. The premium was taken by the OP No.1 thus it is liable to pay the insurance amount to the complainant. It is further stated that the OP No. 3 has already supplied correct Hadbast Number of the Village of the complainant to the OP No.1 i.e. the Insurance Agency, well in time and it is the liability of the OP No. 1 to make the payment of insurance amount to the complainant. By mentioning correct Hadbast number, which the OP No. 3 had already given to the OP No. 1. The complainant had deposited his premium to the Op No.1 through the OP No.3 well in time accordingly the OP No.3 remitted the same to the Op No.1 and also supplied the correct name of the village and Hadbast number, where the land of the complainant is situated. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 3 therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant against it is liable to be dismissed with cost.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file and also the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant. 

6.                The Ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the Paddy Crop for the Kharif Season 2016, which the complainant had sown in his 63 kanals 16 marlas agriculture land, situated in village Naggal HB 280, Tehsil and District Ambala was duly insured with the OP No.1, under the PMFBY, for which premium of Rs. 3996/- was debited from the account of the complainant maintained with OP No. 3. For the Kharif Season 2016, the paddy crop got damaged. Complainant informed the OPs and requested to settle the claim, but the claim amount has not been paid by them. His brother namely Randhir Singh has already received the insurance amount of Rs. 85,694/- for his agriculture land measuring 66 Kanals 9 Marlas situated in village Naggal HB 280, Tehsil and District Ambala, as is evident from the passbook of Randhir Singh Annexure C-15.

                   The Ld. Counsel for the OP No. 1 i.e. Bajaj Allianz, has contended that the paddy crop of the complainant, which was sown in his agriculture land situated at village/notified area of Naggal 102, Tehsil and District Ambala, was insured with the OP No. 1, for the Kharif Season 2016. There was no shortfall of yield in the abovesaid notified area. Hence, claim is not payable.

                   The Ld. counsel for the OP No. 3, has contended that the paddy crop for the kharif season-2016, which the complainant had sown in his agriculture land situated at village Naggal, HB No.280 was duly insured with the OP No. 1 and the OP No. 3 being the bank debited the premium amount of Rs. 3996/- from the account of the complainant towards PMFBY for kharif season 2016. OP No. 3 had remitted the said amount to the OP No. 1 and also provided the correct details of the agriculture land of the complainant, as is evident from Annexure OP-3/1. There is no deficiency is service on the part of OP No. 3, therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant against may be dismissed with cost.

                    From the perusal of jamabandi Annexure C-13, it is revealed that complainant is the owner of 63 kanals 16 Marlas of agriculture land, situated in village Naggal, H.B. No.280. From the statement of account of the complainant Annexure C-12 and account ledger inquiry Annexure C-14, it is evident that on 28.07.2016, an amount of Rs. 3996/- was debited as a premium, from the account of the complainant towards PMFBY for the insurance of crop for the kharif season 2016. Perusal of Annexure OP3/1, reveals that, in the columns meant for name, village and H.B. No., Raguhbir Singh, Naggal, and 280 has been mentioned at serial No. 113. From all these documents, it is made clear that the land of the complainant measuring 63 Kanals 16 Marals is situated at village Naggal, H.B. No.280. The OP No. 3 has pleaded that the complainant is having an account with it and it had debited the premium amount from the account of complainant, for the insurance of paddy crop for the kharif season-2016, which the complainant had sown in his agriculture land situated at village Naggal, HB No.280 and remitted the said amount to the OP No. 1 and also provided the correct details of the land of complainant. It may be stated here that from the record it is borne out that the land of the complainant is situated at village Naggal, HB No.280. From the account statement of Randhir Singh Annexure C-15, it is evident that an amount of Rs. 85,694.20/- was credited into the account of Randhir Singh towards PMFBY. From the Jamabandi Annexure C-13, it is evident that Randhir Singh is having 66 kanal 9 marlas (3.24 Hectares) of agriculture land, situated in village Naggal H.B. No.280. The insurance company had paid the claim amount of Rs.85,694.20/- to Randhir Singh. Meaning thereby the insurance company has given the claim amount @ Rs. 1323/- per Kanal. Once, the insurance company has paid the claim amount of Rs. 85,694.20/- to Randhir Singh, who is having a land measuring 66 kanal 9 marlas, situated at Vill. Naggal HB No. 280, then the complainant, whose land measuring 63 Kanal 16 Marlas, which is also situated in the said village, therefore the complainant is also entitled to get the claim amount of Rs. 84,762/-. By not paying the claim amount the insurance company has committed deficiency service thus it is liable to pay the claim amount of Rs.84,672/- to the complainant along with interest. It is also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him along with litigation expenses. So, far as the deficiency on the part of OPs No. 2 is concerned. It may be stated here that neither any specific allegations has been levelled by the complainant against it nor it has been proved therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant against it is liable to be dismissed. Even there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 3 because it has succeeded to prove that it did the needful, thus the complaint filed by the complainant against it is also liable to be dismissed. 

7.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against the OPs No.2 and 3 and allow the same against OP No. 1 and direct it in the following manner:-

1. To pay the claim amount of Rs. 84,672/- along with interest @ 5% P.A. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 01.10.2018, till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation, mental agony & physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigations expenses. 

 

                   The above said amount shall be paid by the OP No. 1 to the complainant within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 12.04.2021.

 

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (NeenaSandhu)

              Member                          Member                          President