Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/382/2018

Leela Bai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

M.S Godara

06 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.382 of 2018.                                                              Date of Instt.: 06.11.2018.                                                                         Date of Decision: 06.06.2023.

Smt.Leelo wife of Moman Ram resident of House No.267, Adampur Road, Banawali Tehisl & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1.Axis Bank Limited Branch Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited SCO 156 to 159, IInd Floor, Sector-9, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

Present:                   Sh.M.S. Godara, Advocate for complainant.                                              Sh.Amit Wadhera, Advocate for Ops No.1.                                                   Sh.U.K.Gera , Advocate for Op No.2.

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

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                     Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is   owner in possession of land as mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint situated at Village Banawali, Tehsil & District Fatehabad. It is alleged that the complainant had sown cotton crops on the land in question and had also availed Kisan Credit Card (KCC) facility with account No.916030029512080; that the complainant got the standing crop/khariff 2017 insured with the Op No.2 and in this regard an amount of Rs.9609.60/- 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 due to heavy rain fall, hailstorm and snow fall, the sown cotton crop of the complainants got damaged; that the Op No.2 being insurer of the crop is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant on loss of crop suffered by the complainants; that the losses were assessed Rs.25,000/- per hectare; that despite several requests and even serving of legal notice, 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 loss of crop in sum of Rs.1,71,600/-. Rs.50,000/- and Rs. 11000/- towards mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses has also been claimed. Any other claim has also been prayed at the discretion of the Commission.

2.                          Op No.1 filed its reply raising preliminary objections with regard to suppression of material facts, barred by limitation, locus standi,   maintainability and jurisdiction; that amount of premium for insuring the paddy crop, as the complainant himself had disclosed in the declaration form 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 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 as per the complaint, loss of cotton crop has been but in fact the crop of paddy was insured, therefore, there is mis-match of the crop; that the complainants never intimated to the answering Op for alleged loss of crop despite the fact that it had to be submitted as per the operational guidelines, therefore, due to this further process such as survey of damaged field could not be conducted as localized claim is not payable in the absence of any claim; that the loss of crop due to heavy rainfall, hailstorm and snowfall is not covered under the 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.                                               

4.                          To prove the case of the complainant, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure C9 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                          On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of tendered affidavit of Jai Singh, Legal Officer, Annexure R3 and documents Annexure-R4 to Annexure R8, whereas learned counsel for Op No.1 has tendered documents Annexure R1, Annexure R2, Annexure R9 and Annexure R10. 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 complainants are the consumer of the Ops No.1, as is evident through photo copy of pass book placed on case file as Annexure C2. It has been argued by learned counsel for the complainants that the complainant had sown cotton crops in her land, which was duly insured, under PMFBY with OP No.2, but when her crops got damaged, no compensation on account of insured crop was given to them despite the fact that they had completed all the formalities with regard to compensation of damaged cotton crop.

9.                          The complainant in the complaint has mentioned that the cotton crop in her 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 they have 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 such as Loan application form (Annexure R1) duly thumb marked by the complainant and policy schedule (Annexure R5). Perusal of these documents shows that the paddy crop was insured but it is strange that the complainant by way of this complaint is claiming compensation for the cotton crop.

10.                       Learned counsel for the Ops further resisted the claim of the complainants 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 her own legs to prove 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:06.06.2023                                                                                                  

                                                          (Harisha Mehta)                (Rajbir Singh)                                                                                       Member                              President