Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/299/2018

Ram Narayan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj AllianzGeneral Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Bansal

08 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.299 of 2018.                                                             

Date of Instt.:  27.09.2018.                                                                        Date of Decision: 08.08.2023

Ram Narayan son of Ladhu Ram resident of village Chabla Mori  Tehsil &  District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 150-156, Sector – 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its authorised signatory.

2.State Bank of Patiala  now merged and called as State Bank of India Branch, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                  Sh.Pankaj Bansal, 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.                   DR.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.                                 

 

ORDER

SH.RAJBIR SINGH,PRESIDENT

                    In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and are having land situated at village Chabla Mori  Tehsil & District Fatehabad, the detail thereof is mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint. It is alleged that the complainant had sown cotton crops on the land in question and had also availed Kisan Credit Card (KCC) facility bearing account No.65117963025; 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 amount was also 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 heavy rainfall, hailstorm, snow fall and other reason, 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.20,000/- per acre; 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.  Op No.1 filed its separate reply wherein it has been submitted that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; 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 by these agencies or non remittance of premium, the concerned bank/intermediaries shall be liable for the payment of claims; that the complainant should have approached to DAC/FW department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim but instead of filing any complaint before the DAC/FW they have approached this Commission with bad intention by violating the standard terms and conditions, therefore the insurance company cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Other contents mentioned in the complaint have been contorverted and prayer for dismissal of complaint.

3.                          Op No.2 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, suppression of material facts and complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer etc.; that the amount after debiting from the account of the complainant as insurance premium was kept in BGL account so as to transfer the same to the insurance company  because the complainant had not submitted the aadhar card despite several requests, therefore, the due to non-availability of aadhar card, the amount was credited in the account of the complainant on 23.08.2017, therefore, the crop was not insured due to lapse on the part of the complainant and hence, the question of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice does not arise at all. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.

4.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant  tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant  Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C4 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

 5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Jai Singh, Sr.Executive Legal, Annexure R1 whereas learned counsel for the Op No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh.Balbir Singh Chief Manger, as Annexure RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R9. Thereafter, evidence of the Ops was closed.

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

7.                          Undisputedly, the entry regarding deduction of Rs.6635.28/- on account of insurance premium on 31.07.2017 from the account of the complainant is depicted in annexure R7 but in this very document the entry regarding crediting of the deducted amount on 23.08.2017 has also been mentioned which clearly reveals that the crop of the complainant was not 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 27.09.2018 and the replies on behalf of the Ops were filed on 18.12.2018 and 29.12.2019 respectively, 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. Perusal of Annexure R6 i.e. notice issued to the complainant by Op No.2 for submitting the aadhar card before 31.07.2017 but the complainant refused to sign the same after receiving the copy thereof and Annexure R5 i.e. notice which clearly shows that the farmers were asked to get their account linked with aadhar card before 31.07.2017 but the complainant has not done 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 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: 08.08.2023

 

                                                                                                        

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