Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 89.
Instituted on : 07.02.2017.
Decided on : 18.02.2019.
Jitender, age 25 years, son of Sh. Jai Bhagwan, Resident of VPO Naya Bans, Tehsil Sampla, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Manager, Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch at Sampla, District Rohtak.
2. The Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI Lombard House, 414 Veer Sawarkar Marg, Near Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Parbha Devi, Mumbai-400025.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. R.S. Dabas, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Sh. Anil Balhara, Advocate for opposite party No. 1.
Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No. 2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has obtained a Kisan Credit Card vide No.88-12959 on dated 08.02.2013 from opposite party No. 1. On 30.07.2016, OP No. 1 has made an insurance policy for complainant’s crop (Dhan) under Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna by his Kisan Credit Card and OP No. 1 deducted an amount of Rs.759.81/- from the account of Kisan Credit Card of the complainant. According to said insurance policy, crop of Dhan is fully insured under this scheme and if any mis-happening or any loss occurred to the crop of policy holder then the company is liable to pay the compensation and compensation amount will automatically credited in the account of Kisan Credit Card of policy holder. It is alleged that at the time of reaping the crop of Dhan, complainant came to know that 50% crop of Dhan is destroyed by heavy rain and 50% loss has occurred. After that complainant informed the OP No. 2 and a complaint No.1620103999 has registered against the loss and they assured him to compensate. That complainant has waited for a long time to get compensation for his loss of crop but he did not get any information about the compensation amount and he again approached to the OPs. A legal notice dated 06.01.2017 has already been served by the complainant to the OPs, but till date the OPs have not settled the claim of the complainant. That the act of opposite parties of not paying the claim amount is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that OPs may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount Rs.20,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply submitted that it is not disputed that OP No. 1 paid insurance amount to OP No. 2 as per government direction. The matter of giving any amount to the complainant on account of loss of crop is between complainant and insurance company i.e. OP No. 2. It is further submitted that it is incorrect that complainant suffered loss of Rs.20,000/- due to loss of crop of 50% Dhan. The complainant has no legal right to file any case against OP No. 1. OP No. 1 is not liable for any deficiency in service or breach of contract. The matter is only between complainant and OP No. 2 and prayed for dismissal the complaint qua the OP No. 1.
3. OP No. 2 in its reply submitted that complainant has not provided any documentary proof regarding his land and loss of the crop. It is denied that the crops are fully insured. It is also submitted that any loss intimated after 48 hours cannot be entertained as per the insurance policy terms and conditions of scheme of PMFBY in which the captioned KCC is covered. The complainant has not disclosed any time and date of loss in the claim petition and intimation regarding said loss was given very late in the month of October without any documentary proof. Complainant has also not provided any survey report regarding loss and any other proof to prove the damages of the crops. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence on dated 11.10.2018. Ld. counsel for the complainant has also moved an application for additional evidence on dated 18.02.2019 and same was allowed and ld. counsel tendered documents Ex.C7 to Ex.C9 in additional evidence and closed his evidence. Ld. Counsel for OP No. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/4 and closed his evidence on dated 24.01.2019. Ld. counsel for OP No. 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and closed his evidence on dated 24.01.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per document Ex.C1 Khasra Girdawari is annexed in which the crops have been mentioned. After perusal of this document we came to the conclusion that it has not been mentioned anywhere that these crops have been destroyed. The crops is Kharif Fasal meaning thereby, sowing in the month of approximately in June-July and harvesting in the month of October and Girdawari was prepared in the month of October 2016. In additional evidence, the complainant has placed on record the report of special Khasra Girdawari prepared for the crops Rabi 2015 i.e. for wheat and printed report is also annexed which is Ex.C8 in which Kharaba report for Rabi 2016 is prepared. There is cutting on the year in the alleged report and the year 2015 has been made as 2016. Meaning thereby the documents Ex.C7 and Ex.C8 do not support the case of the complainant because as per the complainant, the damage to his crops was during the Kharif-2016. The complainant has failed to produce any document before this Forum to prove that he has suffered loss in the crops Kharif-2016. Moreover it has not been mentioned anywhere in the whole complaint that in how much area he suffered loss of crop. Opposite party has also denied the loss in that area. The report of Govt. authorities i.e. report of District Agriculture Officer of concerned area has not been placed on record to prove that any Kharaba has been occurred during the Kharif Fasal 2016.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that there is no merit in this case and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
18.02.2019. sd/-
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
Sd/-
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
