Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/457/2018

Phool Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Tantia

08 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.457 of 2018.                                                              Date of Instt.: 17.12.2018.                                                                         Date of Decision: 08.08.2023

Phool Singh son of Panna Son of Mangla resident of village Baijalpur 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:                  None for the  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.34607836251; 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.1462/- was debited on 28.07.2017 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. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.

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.1462/- for insuring the kharif crop 2017 was debited on 28.07.2017 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.                          In evidence, affidavit of complainant alongwith documents such as Annexure CW1/A and Ex.C1, Annexure C2 to Annexure C13 have been placed on file.

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 Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure R1/R2 to Annexure R1/R6, whereas OP No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, Branch Manager Annexure RW1/A with documents Annexure R1 & Annexure R2.

6.                          During the proceedings of this compliant, it was brought to the notice of this Commission that the complainant has died and his LRs were to be brought on the case file, therefore,  ample opportunities were given to the complainant side to bring the list of LRs but it failed to so. Today neither list of LRs has been produced on case file nor has none appeared on behalf of the complainant. Since the case pertains to year 2018 and it requires early disposal, therefore, arguments advanced on behalf of learned counsels for the Ops have been heard and the case file has been perused cautiously.

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-2. The plea of the complainant is that  he 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.                        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.

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:08.08.2023

                                                                                                        

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