Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/335/2018

Umed Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Agri Business Bajaj Allianz General insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Sukhbir Dhaka

06 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.335 of 2018.                                                              Date of Instt.: 16.10.2018.                                                                         Date of Decision: 06.03.2023

Umed Singh son of Moman Ram resident of Bhutan Khurd Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1.Area Manager Agri Business Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Chandigarh SCO 150/156 Sector 9 C, Madhay Marg, Chandigarh.

2.Branch Manager Canara Branch G.T.Road, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                  Sh.Sukhbir Dhaka, Advocate for complainant.                                          Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                                    Sh.Sandeep Bhatia, Advocate for Op No.2.        

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                  SH.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.                                  

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                     In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and is having land situated at Village Bhutan Khurd Tehsil & District Fatehabad. It is alleged that the complainant had sown cotton crops/kharif crops on the land in question and had also availed Kisan Credit Card (KCC) facility with account No.2343840002504; that the complainant got the standing crop insured with the Op No.1 on 31.07.2017 and in this regard an amount of Rs.8498/- was debited from his account by Op No.2 as premium of the insurance in question, which was credited in the account of Op No.1; that due to bad weather, the sown cotton crop of the complainant got damaged and complainant intimated agriculture department/Ops to inspect the loss suffered; that the losses were assessed Rs.23669/- per hectare; that despite several requests, the claim for lost crops has not been paid by the Ops, due to which complainant has suffered great financial losses. In the end, prayer has been made for allowing compensation for lost crops in sum of Rs.75,000/ alongwith interest @ 24 % per annum. Rs.20,000/- also claimed towards mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses has also been claimed.

2.                          Upon notice, the OPs-respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately. Op No.1 filed its separate reply wherein it has been submitted that as the complaint, loss of cotton crop has been effected due to bad weather but in fact the crop of paddy was insured; that the complainant never intimated to the answering Op for alleged loss of crop, therefore, due to this further process such as survey of damaged field could not be conducted; that only localized claims were to be decided by the answering Op and other risks were to be handled by the government agencies; that the complainant had even not submitted any claim for damaged crop as per the operational guidelines; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  Preliminary objections such as cause of action, concealment of material facts and jurisdiction etc. have also been taken. Other contentions of the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          Op No.2 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, estoppal, suppression of material facts and complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer etc.; that amount of premium for insuring the paddy crop, as the complainant himself had disclosed about sowing of paddy crop, was debited from the loan account of the complainant and thereafter it was sent to Op no.2/insurance company without any delay, therefore, the insurance company is liable to make the payment of loss of crop; that the complainant has not given any intimation within the stipulated period of 48 hours from the date of alleged loss; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.

4.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Annexure AW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1, Annexure C2, Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

 5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of tendered affidavit of Jai Singh Sr. Executive,  Annexure R1 and documents Annexure-R2 to Annexure R6 whereas learned counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Pawan Kumar, Manager Annexure R1 and document Annexure R2. Thereafter the evidence on behalf of the Ops was closed.

6.                          We have heard oral final arguments from both sides and perused the case file minutely.

7.                          In our considered opinion the main controversy to be decided in this matter is as to whether there was any deficiency, on the part of any of the Ops, so as to compensate the complainant, qua alleged damage to his crops, as claimed in the complaint under consideration.

8.                          Undisputedly, the complainant is the consumer of the Op No.2, as is evident through copy statement of account placed on case file as Annexure C1. It has been argued by learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant had sown ‘cotton’ crops in his land, which was duly insured, under PMFBY with OP No.1, but when his crop got damaged, no compensation on account of insured crop was given to him despite the fact that he had completed all the formalities with regard to compensation of damaged cotton crop.

9.                          The complainant in his complaint has mentioned that due to bad weather the sown cotton crop in his field got damaged but despite it being insured, the Ops did not make the compensation as per the insurance policy and due to inaction on the part of Ops he has suffered mental agony, harassment besides financial loss. On the other the Ops have resisted the claim of complainant on the ground the complainant himself got insured the paddy crop but now he is claiming loss on account of damage of cotton crop. Learned counsel for the Ops drew the attention of this Commission towards the documents Annexure R2 and Annexure R3 (copy of proposal/declaration form and copy of policy). Perusal of both these documents shows that paddy crop was insured. Learned counsel for the Ops further drew the attention of this Commission towards document Annexure R2 wherein the description/nature of the crop has been mentioned as paddy and this document is duly signed by the complainant himself.

10.                       Learned counsel for the Ops further resisted the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant did not intimate the Ops qua the damage of crop within 48 hours as per the operational guidelines; therefore, the Ops could not get the survey of the damaged crop done. It is worthwhile to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the complainant has to stand on his own legs to prove his/her case without taking the benefit of opposite side but in the present case, the complainant has not led any satisfactory evidence either oral or documentary qua getting the alleged loss of crop concerned inspected, through any expert/competent authority. The complainant has also not explained on the case file as to when the intimation about the alleged loss of crop was ever given to the any of the Ops and without intimation the Ops were unable to conduct the survey qua the damaged crops and without survey the Ops cannot assess the loss of damaged crop, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at a conclusion that the complainant has not been able to prove his case by leading cogent and clinching evidence.

11.                        On the basis of above mentioned discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there was no deficiency in service at all or any unfair trade practice, on the part of any of the Ops, as alleged, so as to make any of them liable to any extent in this matter. Hence, the complaint is dismissed in view of the facts and circumstances stated above.  All the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules.  This order be uploaded, forthwith, on the website of this Commission as per rules for the perusal of the parties. File be consigned to record room, as per rules, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated:06.03.2023

                                                                                                        

                       (K.S.Nirania)              (Harisha Mehta)                (Rajbir Singh)                                                  Member                       Member                              President