Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/484/2018

Banwari Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Govt. Of Haryana - Opp.Party(s)

Mani Ram Chauhan

21 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.484 of 2018.                                                              Date of Instt.:  28.12.2018.                                                                        Date of Decision: 21.04.2023.

1.Banwari Lal son  of Khyali Ram

2.Dalip Singh son of Banwari resident of village Banmandori, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1.Government of India through District Collector, Fatehabad. (DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 14.07.2022)

2.Sub Director, Agriculture Department, Fatehabad District Fatehabad.

3.Haryana Gramin Bank Branch, Bhattu Kalan, Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

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

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                  Sh.M.R.Chauhan, Advocate for complainant.                                             OP No.1 deleted vide order dated 14.07.2022.                                             Sh.Sanjay ASO for Op No.2.                                                                         Sh.Inder Singh Sihag,  Advocate for Op No.3.                                            Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for OP No.4.

       

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

 

                                       

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                    In brief, the facts of present complaint are that the complainants are agriculturist by profession having agricultural land, the details of which has been mentioned in paras No.1 & 2 of the complaint, situated at Village Banmandori Tehsil & District Fatehabad,. It is alleged that the complainants had sown cotton crops/kharif crops and paddy crops on the land in question and had also availed Kisan Credit Card (KCC) facility; that the complainant got the standing crop insured under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna”; that due to water logging and other natural calamities, the sown cotton crop and paddy crop of the complainant the above mentioned land got damaged and regarding this survey was got done by the concerned Agriculture Department on the application of the complainant; that all other farmers of village Ban Bandori have already received the compensation on account of loss of cotton crop except the complainants because they have also received Rs.8529/- as compensation; that despite several requests and even serving of legal notice upon the Ops, 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.499990/-. Any other relief at the discretion of this Commission also sought.

2.                          Upon notice, the OPs-respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately.  Ops No.1 & 2 filed the joint reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and cause of action. In the end prayer for the dismissal of the complaint has been made. During the proceedings of this complaint, Op no.1 was deleted from the array of the Ops vide order dated 14.07.2022.

3.                          Op No.3 in its separate reply has taken several preliminary objections such as cause of action, locus standi, maintainability, concealment of material facts from this Hon’ble Commission and complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer etc. It has been further submitted that an amount of Rs.1675.32 for cotton crop of land measuring 66 marla at village Banmandori Tehsil & District was debited from the KCC account of the complainants bearing No.81938800005624 on 29.07.2017 and same was remitted to the Op No.4; that the complainant had never sown paddy crop in his land; 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.

3.                          Op No.4 filed its separate reply wherein it has been submitted that the insured had got insured his land measuring 1.214 hectare for cotton crop and for this the answering Op had received the claim intimation; that as per the report of surveyor the affected area of the complainant was found 0.80 hectare and as per the assessed loss an amount of Rs.8528/- has already been paid to the complainant being localized claim in accordance with the rules framed under operational guidelines;  that there was no yield loss of the cotton crop; 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.

4.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant No.2 as Annexure C1 alongwith documents Annexure C2 to Annexure C7 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

 5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Rajesh Sihag, Deputy Director as Annexure R1 and documents Annexure R2 to Annexure R6, whereas learned counsel for the respondent No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Mukesh Kumar, Branch Manager, Annexure R1 alongwith documents Annexure-R2 to Annexure R4 and learned counsel for the Op No.4 has tendered documents Annexure R5 to Annexure R11.  Thereafter, the evidence of the Ops has been closed.

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

7.                          By way of this complaint, the complainant has claimed compensation for loss of cotton crop and paddy crop. Perusal of the copy of statement which has been placed on case file as Annexure C7 reveals that an amount of Rs.1675.32 was debited as premium on account of insurance of Khariff, 2017 only.  Vide Annexure C6, the concerned Agriculture department had mentioned that loss to the cotton crop of the complainant had occurred due to water logging and further assessed the claim to the tune of Rs.10,000/- being 50 % per hectare. 

8.                          Learned counsel for the Op No.4/insurance company has specifically mentioned in his written statement that an amount of Rs.8528/- on account of loss of cotton crop being localised claim has already been paid to the complainant and this fact also finds support from the statement of account Annexure C7.  Moreover, the complainant himself has admitted in para No.5 of the complainant that he has already received an amount of Rs.8529/- on account of loss of cotton crop. 

8.                          The complainant has failed to lead any sufficient and credible to prove on the case file that his paddy crop was ever insured with the Op No.4 and premium for insuring the same was ever deducted by the Op No.3/bank from his KCC account.  Perusal of Annexure R3 reveals that the complainant himself has declared that he had sown cotton crop only in khariff, 2017 and regarding this a loan of Rs.185625/- was disbursed. This very document also contains the signature/thumb impression of the complainants, which clearly reveals that only and only the cotton crop was insured with the Op No.4 and the claim with regard to lost cotton crop has already been paid to the complainants by the quarter concerned being localised claim as per the assessment and this fact has also been admitted by the complainants themselves in their complaint, therefore, at this stage the complainants cannot raise a plea that their paddy crop was also insured with the Op no.4.            

9.                          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 because the claim on account of loss of cotton crop being localised claim has already been received by the complainant. Therefore, the present complaint is hereby dismissed being infructuous 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: 21.04.2023

                                                                                                        

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