Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/104/2020

Ramesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

08 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.

                                   Sh.Rajbir Singh, President.                                                 Smt.Harisha Mehta and Dr.K.S.Nirania, Members

                                                                  Complaint Case No.104 of 2020.                                                              Date of Instt.:  09.06.2020.                                                                       Date of Decision:  08.05.2023

Ramesh Kumar son of Bhuna Ram resident of  Ratia Tehsil District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Branch Manager, Axis Bank Ratia, Tohana Road, Tehsil Ratia District Fatehabad.
2. ADO (Agriculture Officer) Ratia Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                                               ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:      Complainant in person.                                                                               Sh.Amit Wadhera, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                     OP No.2 proceeded exparte vide order dated 09.03.2023.                   

ORDER

Sh.Rajbir Singh, President

 

1.                          The main facts pertaining to this complaint are to the effect that complainant is having bank account No.915030045585241 with Op No.1; that he has obtained loan on 5 acres of land with KCC facility;  that Op No.1 got his crop insured with No.2 and regarding this an entry qua deduction of Rs.5255/- on 01.08.2016 has been shown in his account and further another entry of deduction of Rsa.3238.87 has also been shown; that thereafter Op No.1 had again shown another entry of withdrawal of Rs.2888/- on 29.07.2017 followed by another entry of deduction of Rs.1899/- on 11.12.2019; that the Op No.1 kept on deducting the amount from his account besides charging service tax, consolidated charges; that the complainant had sown paddy crop on his land which got damaged due to water logging of rainy water; that the complainant requested the Ops to make the compensation on account of damaged crop but the same was not given to the complainant despite several request made by him in this regard. The act and conduct of the Ops is clearly deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint.

2.                          On notice, Ops appeared but during the proceeding of this complaint, the Op No.2 remained absent, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.03.2023. Op no.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, time barred, maintainability, jurisdiction and the present complaint has been filed by concealing the material facts from this Commission. It has been further submitted that no premium for the kharif 2018 and kharif 2019 has been deducted  because the complainant had sown Moong Crop in kharif season; that the complainant had never informed the replying Op for giving consent to insure the kharif crop; that no survey report with regard to damage crop has been placed on case file. In the end, prayer was made for the dismissal of the complaint   against this party with costs.

3.                          Both sides have filed their respective evidence on record.

4.                          Oral final arguments heard from both sides and file has been perused minutely.  

5.                          Undisputedly, the complainant is the consumer of the Op No.2, as is evident through photo copy of pass book placed on case file as Ex.C1. It has been argued by learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant had sown ‘cotton’ crops in 5 acres of land, which was duly insured, under PMFBY through OP No.1, but when his crop got damaged, no compensation on account of insured crop was given to him.

6.                          On the other hand learned counsel for the Op N.1 has argued that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands as in the documents Annexure R1/1 to Annexure R1/3, the complainant himself has requested for not insuring his crop because he has sown Moong Crop on the land in question. It has been argued by learned counsel for the Op No.1 that since the complainant himself was not interested getting his crop insured, therefore, question of deduction of any premium for Kharif, 2018 does not arise at all.

7.                          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 to support the pleas taken by him in his complaint because perusal of the complaint reveals that the complainant has claimed compensation on account of damaged crop of paddy allegedly sown by him in his land but he has not mentioned as to for which year his paddy crop was insured and as to in which year his paddy crop was got damaged.  Further, 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

8.                          The stands taken by the complainant in his compliant are contradictory because in Annexure R1/1 to Annexure R1/3, he himself has requested for not insuring his paddy crop and also put his signatures on the bottom of these documents and on the other hand by way of this complaint he is claiming compensation on account of compensation of insured paddy crop, therefore, this Commission has no hitch to reach at a conclusion that the present complaint has been filed by concealing the material facts in order to take undue advantage of benevolent provisions of Consumer Protection Act.  The complainant has also failed to disclosed as to with which insurance company, his crop was insured and even has not made any insurance company as party to the compliant.                    

9.                          On the basis of above mentioned overall discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there was no deficiency in service at all 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.  File be consigned to record room, after due compliance. This order be uploaded on the website of this Commission as per rules.

Announced in open Commission.                                                           Dated:08.05.2023              

 

                                                                                               

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