Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/454/2018

Rohtash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Andhra Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sukhbir Dhaka

06 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.454 of 2018.                                                              Date of Instt.: 14.12.2018.                                                                         Date of Decision: 06.03.2023

Rohtash son of Dalip Singh resident of village Sarwarpur Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1.Andhra Bank, G.T.Road, Fatehabad  through its Branch Manager.

2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 150-156, Sector -9C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Area Manager-Agri.Business.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                  Sh.Sukhbir Dhaka, Advocate for complainant.                                           Sh.Sandeep Bhatia, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                           Sh.U.K.Gera, 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 brief, the facts of present case are that the complainant has raised a loan from Op No.1 for agriculture purposes vide account No.19831000035641 and mortgaged land about 54 kanal 0 marla situated in village Sarwarpur. It is further alleged that the complainant got the standing crop (khariff 2017) insured with the Op No.2 on 29.07.2017 and in this regard an amount of Rs.3861/- was debited from his account by Op No.1 as premium of the insurance in question, which was credited in the account of Op No.2; that the sown cotton crop of the complainant got damaged and complainant suffered a total loss of Rs.1,40,000/-  @ Rs.20,000/- per hectare; that despite several requests and written request to the Ops, 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.1,40,000/-. Rs.25,000/- also claimed towards mental agony and harassment has also been claimed. Any other relief at the discretion of this Commission also sought.

2.                          Upon notice, the OPs-respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately.  Op No.1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, suppression of material facts and complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer etc.; that amount of premium was debited from the loan account of the complainant on account of premium of crop insurance and  thereafter it was sent to Op no.2/insurance company, 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.

3.                          Op No.2 filed its separate reply wherein it has been submitted that the insured has not mentioned in the complaint that as to which crop was insured and damaged and what was the reason behind this; that the complainant never intimated to the answering Op for alleged loss of crop despite the fact that it had to be submitted within 48 hours, 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.  Other contents mentioned in the complaint have been contorverted and prayer for dismissal of complaint.

4.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1, Annexure C2 and Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and 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 Sh.Abhishek, Branch Manager, Annexure
R1 alongwith document Annexure-R2 whereas learned counsel for the Op No.2 tendered affidavit of Jai Singh Legal Officer Annexure R3 and documents Annexure-R4 to Annexure R8. 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.                          The complainant in order to prove his case has placed on case file Annexure C1 (statement of bank account), Annexure 2 inventory of average yield of villages, Ex.C1 copy of jamabandi and Ex.C2 copy of khasra girdawari besides his affidavit Annexure CW1/A.

8.                          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.

9.                          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