Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/92/2019

Ved Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Inder Karwasra

10 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.92 of 2019.                                                                Date of Instt.: 15.02.2019.                                                                         Date of Decision: 10.07.2023.

Ved Parkash son of Shri Birbal son of Shri Sheo Nath resident of village Sabarwas Tehsil & District Hisar.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

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

2.Axis Bank, Branch Kumharia 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.Sandeep Bhatia, 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 Sabarwas Tehsil & District, Fatehabad. It is alleged that the complainant had sown cotton crops on the land in question and had also availed Kisan Credit Card (KCC) bearing No.915030050693560 from Op No.2; that the complainant got the standing cotton crop insured with the Op No.1 and in this regard amount being insurance premium of Rs.4576/- was debited from his account by Op No.2 on 29.07.2017 and credited in the account of Op No.2; that the sown cotton crop of the complainant got damaged and the concerned department had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per acre on account of crop loss but he has not been given any compensation on account of loss of insured crop; 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 them; that despite several requests, the claim for lost crops has not been paid by the Ops, due to which complainants have suffered great financial losses. Hence, this complaint.

2.                          On notice, Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. Op No.1 in its reply submitted that as per the complaint, loss of cotton crop has been effected but in fact the crop of paddy was insured, therefore, there is mis-match of the crop; 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 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.

3.                          Op No.2 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as limitation, suppression of material facts and maintainability etc. It has been further submitted that the complainant himself got his paddy crop insured and regarding this, the answering Op had debited amount from his bank account and remitted to the Op No.1, therefore, the Op No.1 being insurer are liable to identify the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of reply Op. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.           

4.                          In evidence, learned counsel for the complainants tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure C1 alongwith documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of tendered affidavit of Sh.Sarpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Assistant Manager Annexure R1 and documents Annexure R2 to Annexure R7, whereas OP No.2 has documents  affidavit of Sh.Hari Om Ex.RW2/A and Annexure R4.

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

6.                          The complainant has come with the plea that his crop 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. On the other the Ops have resisted the claim of complainant on the ground the complainant himself got insured the paddy crop but now he is claiming loss on account of damage of cotton crop. Learned counsel for the Ops drew the attention of this Commission towards the documents such as copy of proposal form (Annexure R2), policy schedule (Annexure R3), claim summary (Annexure R4) and loan application form for kisan power duly signed/thumb marked by complainant (Annexure R4 dated 15.03.2022). Perusal of these documents shows that the paddy crop was insured but it is strange that the complainant by way of this complaint are claiming compensation for the cotton crop.

7.                         Learned counsel for the Ops further resisted the claim of the complainants 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. 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.

8.                          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             

                                                        

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