DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.
Complaint Case No.30 of 2019.
Date of Instt.: 11.01.2019. Date of Decision: 10.07.2023
Jitender Singh son of Ram Kishan son of Ganga Ram resident of village Jandli Kalan Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
...Complainant.
Versus
1.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.150-156, 2nd floor Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its manager.
2.HDFC, Bank Limited, Branch Near Janta Dharmshala Hisar Road, Bhuna through its Branch Manager.
3.The Deputy Director, Agriculture Department, Fatheabad.
...Opposite parties
Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: Sh.Pardeep Beniwal, Advocate for complainant. Sh. U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.1. Sh.Inder Singh Sihag, Advocate for Op No.2.
Op No.3 exparte vide order dated 15.03.2023.
CORAM: SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT. DR.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER. SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER
ORDER
SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT
In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is owner in possession of land situated at village Jandli Kalan Tehisl & District Fatehabad. 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.50200013678034; that the complainant got the standing crop insured under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the Op No.1 and in this regard an amount of Rs.5644.20/- was debited from the account of the complainant by Op No.2 as premium of the insurance in question, which was credited in the account of Op No.1; that due to heavy rain fall, hailstorm and snow fall, the sown cotton crop of the complainants got damaged and complainants intimated agriculture department/Ops to inspect the loss suffered; that the losses were assessed Rs.18,000/- per acre; that despite several requests and even serving of legal notice upon the Ops, the claim for lost crops has not been paid by the Ops, due to which complainant has suffered great financial losses. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately. Op No.1 in its reply has submitted that the insurance companies should have received the premium for coverage either from bank, channel partner, insurance intermediary or directly and any loss in transit due to negligence of these agencies or non-remittance by these agencies, insurance company cannot be held liable; that except localised claims, all other perils were to be finalised by government agencies; that for any dispute the complainant had to approach DAC & FW but instead of approaching them, the complainant has filed the present compliant; that the complainant had to give claim intimation within 48 hours but he has failed to do so; that no amount of premium was ever received from the complainant, thus he was not insured, therefore, the replying Op is not liable to indemnify the loss of the complainant; 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.
3. Op No.2 in its separate reply has raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, suppression of material facts, estoppal and complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer etc.; that an amount of Rs.5644/- was deducted from the account of complainant on31.07.2017 on account of crop insurance (Khariff 2017) which was transferred to the Op No.1 under PMFBY, therefore, being the insurer the Op No.1/insurance company is liable to indemnify the 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. Op No.3 in its reply has submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of replying Op. Other contentions mentioned in the complaint were controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
5. To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Annexure C1 alongwith documents Annexure C2 to Annexure C7.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Smt.Sarpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Assistant Manager as Annexure R1 alongwith documents Annexure R2 to Annexure R4 whereas OP No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Baljeet Singh,Manager as Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure R5 to Annexure R10. No evidence on behalf of Op No.3 has been led as during the proceedings of this compliant, it remained absent and hence, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.03.2023.
7. We have heard oral final arguments from both sides and perused the case file minutely.
8. The complainant by way of the present complaint has submitted that he got his cotton crop (kharif 2017) insured with the Op No.1 and regarding this an amount of Rs.5644.20/- was deducted by Op No.2 and remitted to Op No.1 on account of insurance premium but when his crop got damaged and claim was lodged regarding this, none of the Ops have paid the claimed amount despite the fact that concerned agriculture department had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.45519/- per hectare in the notified area.
9. Per contra, it has been argued by learned counsel for the OPs that the deducted premium (Rs.5644.20/-) was credited in the account of the complainant on 02.08.2017 (Annexure R6) within a short span i.e. much before the loss to the crop of the farmers, if any, therefore, there was no privity of contract between the complainant and Ops as no insurance cover was ever issued to the farmer.
10. Undisputedly, the entry regarding deduction of Rs.5644.20/- on account of insurance premium was deducted from the account of the complainant as depicted in Annexure R6 but in this very document the entry regarding crediting of Rs. 5644.20/- on 02.08.2017 has also been mentioned which clearly reveals that the crop of the complainant was not never insured. Further, at the time of damaging of crop, there was no privity of contract amongst the parties. Moreover, the present complaint was filed on 11.01.2019 and the replies on behalf of the Ops were filed on 11.04.2019, 15.05.2019 and 28.05.2019 wherein the fact regarding crediting of the insurance premium amount has specifically been mentioned, therefore, the complainant was having ample opportunities to rebut the plea made by the Ops in their written statements but the complainant has failed to do so. Further, 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 prove that any of the Ops is involved in deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. On one hand, the complainant himself has not complied with the guidelines of the policy and on the other hand filed the present complaint against the Ops by concealing the material facts from this Commission, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at a conclusion that the complainant has not been able to prove their 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: 10.07.2023
(Harisha Mehta) (K.S.Nirania) (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member President
