Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/414/2018

Pardeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Inder Karwasra

18 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.414 of 2018.                                                              Date of Instt.: 26.11.2018.                                                                         Date of Decision: 18.04.2023.

Pardeep Kumar son of Abhay Ram,  resident of Mohamadpur Rohi Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited SCO 150-156 Sector 9 C, Madhay Marg, Chandigarh through its Authorised signatory.

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

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                  Sh.Inder Singh Karwasra, Advocate for complainant.                                  Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                                    Sh.N.D.Mittal, Advocate for Op No.2. 

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

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                     In brief, the facts of the present case are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and is having agricultural land, the details of which has been mentioned in para No.1 of the compliant, situated at Village Mohamadpur Rohi Tehsil & 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.65255802284; that the complainant got the standing crop insured with the Op No.1 on 31.07.2017 and in this regard an amount of Rs.5958.14 and Rs.2852.65/- was debited from his account by Op No.2 as premium of the insurance in question, which was credited in the account of Op No.1; that due to bad weather, the sown cotton crop of the complainant got damaged and complainant intimated agriculture department/Ops to inspect the loss suffered; that the losses were assessed Rs.25,000/- per hectare; 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.3,94,690/ alongwith interest @ 24 % per annum. Rs.50,000/- & Rs.15,000/-  also claimed 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. Op No.1 filed its separate reply wherein wherein it has been submitted that the reason for loss mentioned in the complaint has not been covered under the terms and conditions of the policy; that the role of the insurance company is only to pay the claim in accordance with the “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” but the insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant or the bank of the complainant; that the complainant has never intimated to the answering Op for alleged loss of crop despite the fact that it had to be submitted within 48 hours, therefore, due to this further process such as survey of damaged field could not be conducted; that only localized claims were to be decided by the answering Op and other risks were to be handled by the government agencies; that the complainant had to approach DAC and FW for any kind of claim and the decision to be taken by the concerned department was binding on State Government/insurance company/banks but the complainant has filed the present complaint before this Commission without any logic and base; that due to non-intimation, survey of the alleged crop could not be got conducted; that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and answering Op, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable; 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.                          In the reply filed on behalf of Op No.2, it has been averred, inter-alia, that the complainant is not maintainable before this Commission and the complaint is bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties. It has been further submitted that an amount of Rs.717416.33/- of 175 farmers for insurance of kharif crops 2017 under PMFBY was  paid to the OP No.2 on 18.08.2017 through RTGS including the premium amount of the complainant; that the said payment was accepted and retained by the insurance company for about six months; that when the insured crops reportedly suffered damages but all of a sudden, on 14.02.2018, the premium amount of  insured crop was returned and created in BGL Account of the bank called Crop Insurance Claims received account without any reference or correspondence with the answering Op; that no immediate notice in writing was given after alleged damaged and even no details of damaged crop has been furnished. There is no deficiency in service on the part of bank. Other contentions have also been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In the end, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Annexure C1 alongwith documents Anneuxre-C2 to Annexure C11 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                      On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of tendered affidavit of Sarpreet Kaur, Assistant Manager Legal Annexure R1 and documents Annexure-R2 to Annexure R5 whereas learned counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Balbir Singh, Chief Manager Annexure R6 with documents Annexure R7 to Annexure  R21. 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.                          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 he had completed all the formalities with regard to compensation of damaged cotton crop.

9.                          The complainant in his complaint has mentioned that due to bad heavy rain fall, hail storm and snow fall the sown cotton crop in his 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 he has suffered mental agony, harassment besides financial loss.  

10.                       Learned counsel for the Ops resisted the claim of the complainant on the ground that except the localised claims all other perils were to be finalized by the government agencies on the basis of yield of crop.  It has been further argued by learned counsel for the Ops 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 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, 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: 18.04.2023

                                                                                                        

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