Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/318/2018

Bahadur Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Godara

17 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.318 of 2018.                                                              Date of Instt.:  05.10.2018.                                                                        Date of Decision: 17.05.2023.

Bahadur Singh son of Tara Chand, resident of village Mohammadpur Rohi Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 156-159, IInd Floor, Sector-9, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Manager.

2.IDBI Bank, Branch Bhuna Mod, G.T.Road, Fatehbad, Tehsil and District Fatehabad, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                  Sh.Vinod Godara, Advocate for complainant.                                             Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                                     Sh.M.K.Dharnia, Advocate for Op No.2.  

CORAM:         SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                                                     DR.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.                                

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                    In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is an agriculturist having land in village Mohammad Pur Tohi, the description of the land is mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint.  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.1099651100006217; that the complainant got the standing crop insured under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the Op No.1 on 31.07.2017 and in this regard an amount of Rs.3877 was debited from his account by Op No.2 as premium of the insurance in question; that due to white fly and other insects and pests, the sown cotton crop of the complainant got damaged and on his application, his land was inspected by the officers of concerned department; that in the report the loss to the tune of 85 % to 90 % was assessed on 11.09.2017; that the average cotton produce in the area was 10 quintals per acre, therefore, the complainant has suffered loss 48 qunitals from total land 48 kanal 0 marla which is quantified to the tune of Rs.2,88,000/- and the Op No.1 being the insurer is liable to indemnify the loss; that  an amount of Rs.18455/- only was deposited in the account of the complainant on  08.06.2018 despite the fact that the loss to the tune of Rs.20,000/- was assessed and given to other farmers of the same village; 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.2,69,545/. Rs.15,000/- 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 the insured had got insured his paddy crop and there was 9.52 % shortfall in the paddy crop in the insured unit area, therefore, an amount of Rs.18456/- has already been paid to the complainant through cheque dated 14.05.2018 vide UTR No.N134180541068054; that as per declaration the cotton crop of the complainant was not insured; that the loss of cotton crop due to white fly and other insets and pests is not covered under the guidelines; 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/bank filed its separate reply wherein several preliminary objections such as maintainability, cause of action, suppression of material facts from this Commission and locus standi etc. have been taken. It has been further submitted that an amount of Rs.3817/- was debited form the bank account of the complainant on account of insurance premium; that the said amount was remitted to the insurance company, therefore, the insurance company being the insurer is liable to indemnify the loss, if any. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for the dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7.

 5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op no. tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Saurav Khullar as Ex.RW1/A. Learned counsel for the Op No.2 has tendered affidavit of Smt.Neetu G.Bhatnagar, Assistant General Manager as Ex.RW2/A. Documents Ex.RW1 to Ex.RW5 have also been placed on file by the Ops.

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

7.                          It is not disputed that the Op No.1 had already paid an amount of Rs.18456/- to the complainant on account of loss of paddy crop to the extent 9.52 % shortfall in the insured unit area.   By way of this complaint, the complainant is claiming compensation for the loss of cotton crops due to white fly and other insects and pests on the ground that his cotton crop was insured with the Op No.1 and regarding this an amount of Rs.3877/- was deducted by Op No.2 from his account.  As per Ex.C5, the officers of Agriculture Department had opined the crop loss upto the extent of 85 % to 90 %. It is worthwhile to mention here that this report is pertaining to the loss of cotton crop.

8.                          As per annexure R-2/1, the complainant had applied for the loan for paddy crop and on believing this information; the Op No.1 had issued the policy Ex.RW1/1. In this very document, it is clearly mentioned that the paddy crop of the complainant was insured. Since, the complainant himself has disclosed paddy crop in application form for KCC Loans Annexure -2/1 and has already received the compensation to the tune of Rs.18456/- on account of loss of paddy crop as there was 9.52 % shortfall in the insured unit area, therefore, at this stage, he is ceased to claim compensation for the loss of cotton crop because he has failed to place on record any credible evidence to show that his cotton crop was ever insured with the Op No.1. 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 make any of the Ops liable for any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, 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: 17.05.2023

                                                                                                        

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