Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/458/2018

Devinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Sandee Tantia

25 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.458 of 2018.                                                              Date of Instt.: 17.12.2018.                                                                         Date of Decision: 25.05.2023

Devinder Kumar son of Hari Chand son of Ram Ditta resident of Bhuna, Tehsil & District Fatehabad

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited SCO No.150-156, Sector 9 C, Madya Marg, Chandigarh through its Authorised signatory.

2.State Bank of India, Branch Bhuna Tehsil & District Fatehabad  through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

Present:                  Sh.Kaushal Mehta, Advocate for complainant.                                          Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                                  Sh.Sanjeev Mehta, Advocate for Op No.2.                                                          

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                  DR.K.S.NIRANIA, 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 Bhuna Tehsil & Fatehabad. It is alleged that the complainant had sown cotton crops on the land in question and had also availed Kisan Credit Card (KCC) facilities with account No.65079481882; that the complainant got the standing cotton crop insured with the Op No.1 on and in this regard insurance premium to the tune of Rs.4467.06/- was debited on 31.07.2017 from his account by Op No.2 and credited in the account of Op No.1; that the sown cotton crop of the complainant got damaged due to heavy rain fall, flood, snow fall and hailstorm; that the land of the complainant was inspected and the concerned department has assessed the claim to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per acre; that Op No.1 being insurer of the crop is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant on loss of crop suffered by the complainant; 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 loss of crop in sum of Rs.4,50,000/-. Rs.30,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses has also been claimed.

2.                          Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately.

3.                          Op No.1 filed its reply wherein it has been submitted that as per the complaint, loss of cotton crop has been effected due to heavy rainfall, snowfall and hailstorm but no such natural disaster has ever taken place in that area specially in the year 2017; that the complaint of the complainant is not tenable being in violation of provisions of law; that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant 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.

                             Op No.2 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to suppression of material facts, cause of action, maintainability and jurisdiction; that amount of premium of Rs.4467.06/- for insuring the kharif crop 2017 was debited from the loan account of the complainant as per his disclosure and thereafter it was sent to Op no.1/insurance company without any delay, therefore, the insurance company is liable to make the payment of loss of crop, if any; 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 as Annexure C1 alongwith documents Annexure C2 to Annexure C17.

5.                          On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of tendered affidavit of Sh.Jai Singh, Senior Executive Legal Annexure R1 and documents Annexure-R2 to Annexure R6, whereas OP No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, Branch Manager Annexure RW1/A with documents Annexure R1 & Annexure R2.

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 photo copy of statement of account placed on case file as Annexure C-5. 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 it has completed all the formalities with regard to compensation of damaged cotton crop.

9.                          On the other the Ops have resisted the claim of complainant on the ground that the complainant has not suffered any loss of crop as in the area where the land of the complainant is situated, no natural calamities like hailstorm, heavy rain fall and snowfall has ever taken place. 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.

10.                        During the course of arguments learned counsel for the complainant has placed the survey report dated 23.04.2019 qua village Bhuna duly issued by Deputy Director, Agriculture Department. In the complaint, the complainant has mentioned that in the survey the concerned department had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per acre on account of loss of cotton in village Bhuna but the report submitted by learned counsel for the complainant is quite contrary to the facts submitted by him as in this report the loss has been assessed -6257.51 per hectare.  Further the plea of suffering of cotton crop loss by the complainant is also unbelievable because in the claim summary it has been petition that there is 0 % shortfall of yield for the said crop, therefore, yield claim is not payable. Further perusal of the assessment report clearly indicates that the actual taken yield was greater than the threshold yield; therefore, we have no hitch to reach at the conclusion that the complainant has no suffered any loss on account of damage of kharif crop for the year 2017.  

11.                        It is worthwhile to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the complainants have 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, it is clear that the complainant has not been able to prove his case by leading cogent and clinching evidence.

12.                        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:25.05.2023

                                                                                                        

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