Haryana

Ambala

CC/174/2018

Joginder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Deputy Director of Agriculture - Opp.Party(s)

06 Dec 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                                      Complaint case No.:  174 of 2018.

                                                                     Date of Institution    :   05.06.2018.

                                                                     Date of decision        :   06.12.2019.

 

1. Joginder Singh,
2. Avtar Singh,
3. Inder Singh,
4. Mohinder Singh all sons of Amar Singh,
5. Dali Rani wife of Shri Mohinder Singh daughter of Shri Amar Nath, All residents of Village Naggal, Tehsil and Distt. Ambala.

……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. The Deputy Director of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Ambala.
2. The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Court Road, Ambala City.
3. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd, SCO 156-159, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory/General Manager.

 

                                                                   ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Gurpreet Singh Antal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Shri Jaswant Singh, Authorized Representative, for the OP No.1.

Shri Ashwani Nandra, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.  

Shri R.K.Vig, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.3.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainants have 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 release the claim of crop of Kharif, 2016 @ Rs.12,000/- per acre alongwith interest @ 24% p.a from the date of application till its realization to the complainants.
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him along with litigation costs.
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

                   Brief facts of the case are that the complainants are having agricultural land situated at village Naggal, Hadbast (hereinafter referred to as ‘HB’) No.280, Tehsil and Distt. Ambala. The Government of India, launched a policy for the farmers, for insurance of their crops under the scheme PMFBY through banks. The amount of insurance was regularly deducted by the OP No.2 from the account of the complainants under the said scheme to forward it to OP No.3. Due to inundation/rain, the crops of Kharif, 2016 of the villagers of Naggal were totally damaged and the government had given compensation of Rs.12,000/- per acre of land to the farmers/effective persons. The crops of Kharif, 2016 of the complainants were totally damaged and they applied for compensation. But the claim of the complainants was not released due to negligent act of the OP No.2 as it wrongly and intentionally had written, the HB No.102 instead of HB No.280. Complainants made a representation to the OP No.1, that they are resident of village Naggal, HB No.280, Tehsil and Distt. Ambala and are having their bank accounts, at village Naggal, HB No.280, but the OP No.2 while forwarding the claim of the complainants to the OP No.3 had shown accounts of the complainants, at village Naggal, HB No.102 instead of HB No.280. Due to wrong information supplied by the OP No.2 to OP No.3, the claims of the complainants were not released. In this regard the complainants wrote a letter to OP No.1, it forwarded the said letter vide Memo No.3154 dated 27.07.2017 to the OP No.2, for taking necessary steps to release the claim of damaged crops and also supplied the account numbers of the complainants to it. The OP No.2 replied the said letter stating therein that it had sent the premium to OP No.3, but had not given the Hadbast Number/village survey number of any category to the OP No.3. The OP no.3 intentionally mentioned wrong HB Number and it requested the OP No.3 to correct the Hadbast Number and release the claim amount to the complainants. The OP No.2 also forwarded the copy of the letter dated 27.07.2017 to OP No.3. The OP No.3 gave a false and frivolous reply dated 29.08.2017. Complainants served legal notice dated 27.10.2017, upon the OPs, which was duly received by them. The OP No.2 replied the same and admitted the claim of complainants. But OP No.3 neither replied the said notice nor released the claim amount. Complainants again issued legal notice dated 25.01.2018, to the OP No.1 & 2. The OP No.1 replied the said legal notice vide reply dated 01.03.2018 and admitted the claim of the complainant. It also stated that the Hadbast Number was wrongly mentioned by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh, as such it is not liable to pay the claim amount. It is only the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, which is liable to pay the compensation to the complainants. By not paying the claim amount to the complainants, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.   

2.                 Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared authorized representative and filed written version, raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability. On merits, it is stated that the Govt. of India, launched a policy by the name Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. The OP No.1 conducts the 4 crop cutting experiments in each village and calculate the yield and forward the same to the head office of the department. The complainants never informed it about total damage of their crop. As far as, the Hadbast Number is concerned, the OP No.1 had forwarded the letter of the complainants to the OP No.2 & 3. It is only a farmers welfare Department of the Govt., insurance claim if any, to any farmer has to be released by the Insurance Company, i.e OP No.3 and not by it. The present complaint filed against it deserves dismissal with costs.

                   Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written version, raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; not coming to this Forum with clean hands and suppressed the true & material facts. On merits, it is stated that it had not supplied any wrong information to the OP No.3. The OP No.3 itself had mentioned wrong Hadbast Number. It forwarded the letter of the complainant to the OP No.3 and also requested it, on behalf of the complainant to release the claim amount. The legal notice dated 25.01.2018, was duly replied by it on 01.03.2018, mentioning therein that the incorrect Hadbast Number was mentioned by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.156-159, Sector 9-C, Second Floor, Chandigarh i.e. OP No.3, thus the OP No.2 is not liable for the payment of alleged claim to the complainants. There is not deficiency on its part and present complaint filed against it deserves dismissal with costs.

                   Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written version, raised preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction; estoppel; cause of action; bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties and maintainability. On merits, it is stated that the complainants have not placed on record any documents/records in recognition of their ownership qua the land. The complainants have got insured their agricultural land situated at village/notified areas of village Naggal, Tehsil & District Ambala with the OP No.3 vide policy No.OG-17-1201-5015-00012219 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna covering the crop season of Kharif w.e.f 17.06.2016 to 30.11.2016, for the cultivation of paddy & 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. The insured crop is paddy & the insurance company did not receive any claim intimation, hence the claim is not payable under localizes calamities. There is no shortfall of yield in the notified area as mentioned by the complainant. After receiving the letter dated 29.08.2017 from the OP no.1, it had informed the OP No.1 vide letter dated 29.08.2017 that there is no crop loss so claim is not payable. The OP No.3 acted well within the frame work of PMFBY & policy to refute the claim. The complainants are not covered under the definition of C.P. Act.  There is no deficiency in service on its part thus the present complaint filed against it may be dismissed with costs.

3.                Complainant alongwith learned counsel for the complainant tendered his affidavit and affidavit of Shri Surinder Singh son of Shri Sahib Singh, resident of village Naggal, Tehsil and Distt. Ambala as Annexure CA & CB respectively alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-20 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, authorized representative for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Ms. Manjit Kaur, Assistant Statistical Officer, Pardhan Mantry Fasal Bima Yojna in the office of Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Haryana, Ambala as Annexure OP1/A alongwith documents Annexure OP1/1 to OP1/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Authorized Representative alongwith learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Shri Ranbir Singh, Senior Manager, Branch Punjab National Bank Court Road, Ambala City as Annexure OP2/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2. Learned counsel for the OP No.3 tendered affidavit of Shri Surpreet kaur Ahluwalia, Assistant Manager Legal, Authorized Signatory, # Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No. 156-159, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh as Annexure OP3/A alongwith document Annexure OP3/1 to OP3/10 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and have carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The plea of the complainants is that their agricultural land situated at village Naggal, HB No.280 was duly insured with the OP No.3, but it did not release the claim amount by showing their land in village Naggal, HB No.102. However, to prove this fact that their land is situated in village Naggal, HB No.280 and due to heavy rain their crop of Kharif-2016, got totally damaged, no document has been produced by the complainants. The complainants have not placed on record the Jamabandi to show that they are owner of the above referred land. They have also not placed on record khasra girdawari to show as to what crop they have sown on their land. Furthermore, they have not placed on record any proof regarding damage of crop. In the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, it can be easily said that the complainants have failed to prove their case. The complaint filed by the complainants is devoid of merits, consequently, we dismiss the same, without any order as to costs.  

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint being devoid of merits. The parties are left to bear their own cost. 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 :06.12.2019.

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

          Member                                   Member                          President.