Haryana

Ambala

CC/366/2018

Avtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz - Opp.Party(s)

09 Dec 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                                      Complaint case No.:  366 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution           :   02.11.2018.

                                                          Date of decision     :   09.12.2019.

 

Avtar Singh son of Shri Gurbachan Singh, resident of village Hassanpur P.O. Naggal, Tehsil and District, Ambala.

 

……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 156-159, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh-160009, through its Regional Manager-Agri Business.
2. H.D.F.C. Bank, Near Panchayat Bhawan, Sector-7, Ambala City, through its Manager.
3. Deputy Director, Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department, Ambala.

 

                                                                   ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Mewa Ram, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri R.K. Vig., Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

Shri Sandeep Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.  

Ms. Manjit Kaur, Authorized Representative for the OP No.3.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay crop loss claim for the year 2016-17 & 2017-18 to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the him
3. To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation costs.
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

                   Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of agricultural land measuring 11 kilas at village Hassanpur. Due to disease his paddy & wheat crops for the year 2016-17 & 2017-18 got ruined. He applied for claim for loss of his crops under ‘Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana’, but could not get the same, whereas other agriculturist of the said area had already received the claim amount. By not paying the claim amount the OPs have not only committed deficiency in service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.   

2.                 Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, estoppel & jurisdiction. On merits, it is stated that the complainant has not placed on record any documents/records in recognition of his ownership qua the land. No crop of Kharif in the year 2016 had been damaged as per its information & thus the claim of the complainant is not payable. The insured crop is paddy & the Insurance Company did not receive any claim intimation and as such claim was not payable under localized calamities. It has neither committed any deficiency in service nor indulged into any unfair trade practice. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint against it with costs.

                   Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written version, raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; concealing of true and material facts, bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties, estoppel. On merits, it is stated that the policy was to be governed and operated strictly as per terms and conditions as envisaged under the operational guidelines of PMFBY. The OP No.1 is acting as per the directions and guidelines of the Government under the scheme of PMFBY launched on 17.06.2016, vide notification No.3009/Agri.II(I)-2016/10854. As per the scheme, the OP No.2 had deducted the premium from the account of the complainant and deposited the same with the OP No.1. The matter involved in the present complaint is only related to complainant and OP No.1, as such it cannot be said to be deficient in providing service. The present complaint filed against it be dismissed with costs.

                   Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written version, raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, jurisdiction, time barred, no cause of action. On merits, it is stated that the complainant did not mention any Hadbast number and khasra numbers of the fields as stated to be the owner, for which the claim is claimed. It is admitted that complainant gave an application for the loss of Kharif, 2016 and the OP No.3 forwarded the said letter to the OP No.1, it replied the same and the same was sent to complainant. It also wrote a letter to OP No.2 for correction of Hadbast no. Claim is not related with it as the claim has to be paid by the OP No.1. There is no deficiency on its part and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint against it with costs.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure C-1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Jai Singh, Sr. Executive Legal, Authorized Signatory, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.156-159, 2^nd floor Sector 9-C, Chandigarh as Annexure OP-1/A alongwith documents Annexure OP1/1 to OP1/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Shri Rahul Kumar, Assistant Manager, HDFC Bank Limited, Ambala City as Annexure OP2/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2. On the other hand Manjit Kaur, Authorized Representative working as Assistant Statistical Officer in the Agriculture Department at Ambala of OP No.3 tendered her affidavit, as Annexure OP3/A alongwith document Annexure OP3/1 to OP3/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and have carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is the owner of agricultural land situated at village Hassanpur. His paddy crop during the year 2016-17 got ruined, due to disease. He lodged the claim with the OPs under the PMFBY scheme launched by the Govt. of India, but they refused to pay the claim amount. The Learned counsel for the OP No.1 argued that the agricultural land of the complainant is situated in village Hassanpur HB No.289 and the shortfall of yield in the said village is zero percent, thus the claim is not payable. The Ld. counsel for the OP No.2 argued that complainant is having account with it and it had deducted the premium from his account under the PMFBY scheme. It is the OP No.1 who had to pay the claim amount to the complainant and nothing has to be done by it and therefore the complaint filed against it be dismissed with costs. The Authorized representative of OP No.3 argued that complainant did not mention the Hadbast number and the khasra numbers of the fields, for which he is claiming as owner. The plea of the complainant is that he is the owner of 11 kila of land situated at village Hassanpur, Ambala. However, to prove this fact that complainant has neither  placed on record the Jamabandi or any other document. Even he has not placed on record the khasra girdawari to show that in fact he had sown paddy in the year 2016. Furthermore, he has not placed on record any proof regarding damage of his paddy crop or co-villagers. In the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, it can be easily said that the complainant has failed to prove his case. The complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits, consequently, we dismiss the same, without any order as to costs. 

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint being devoid of merits. The parties are left to bear their own cost. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :09.12.2019.

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

          Member                                   Member                          President.