Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/131/2020

Raghbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Verma

12 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.131 of 2020.                                                              Date of Instt.:  13.07.2020.                                                                         Date of Decision: 12.09.2023

Raghbir Singh son of Ganesha Ram resident of village Dhani Chanchak Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1. ICICI Bank Limited Branch Noorki Ahli, Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Manager.
2. ICICI Bank Limited Branch Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Manager.
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited SCO 215-216-217, 4^th Floor Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160022, through Manager.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                         Sh.Rajesh Kumar Verma, Advocate for complainant.                                 Sh.Sandeep Bhatia, Advocate for Op No.1 & 2.                                         Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.3.

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 and in cultivating possession of land situated at village Ayalki Tehsil & District Fatehabad, the details of which is mentioned in paras No.1 & 2 of the complaint; that the complainant had sown crop (kharif 2019) on the land in question and had also availed Kisan Credit Card (KCC) facility No.316251000018 from Ops No.1 & 2; that the complainant got the standing crop insured under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the Op No.3/insurance company on 12.07.2019 and in this regard an amount of Rs.11343/-/- was debited from his account by Ops No.1 & 2  as premium of the insurance in question, that the crop of the complainant got damaged due to heavy rain fall and hailstorm and on his application the concerned Agriculture Department has assessed the loss  to the tune of Rs.25000/- per acre;  that despite several requests and serving of legal notice, the claim for damaged crops has not been paid by the Ops, due to which complainants have 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. Ops No.1 & 2, in their joint reply have taken several preliminary objections such as cause of action, estoppal, cause of action, concealment of material facts from this Commission and locus standi etc. It has been further submitted that insurance is always for a period of six months and the amount of premium was deducted on account of cotton crop; that the account of the complainant was opened after taking voter ID and as per the government instructions aadhar card is mandatory, therefore, he was directed to submit the aadhar card  but his name was not tally with the documents, therefore, the premium so deducted from his account was received back with a direction to get the name of the complainant corrected; that the complainant was duly intimated through SMS as well as registered post; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the replying Ops. Other contentions have also been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In the end, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                Op No.3 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as estoppal, concealment of material facts and cause of action etc.; that the present complaint before this Commission is not maintainable because the reason mentioned in the loss assessment report is not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, insurance company cannot be held liable for any claim; that the replying Op had received the premium from the bank vide reference No.70261969 for the amount of Rs.17050814/- but the record of the farmer was not available on the portal, therefore, excess amount of Rs.2278317/- was refunded back to the bank of the farmer after due confirmation from the bank vide UTR No.CITIN20022939261 dated 10.02.2020; that except localized claims, all other perils were to be finalised by government agencies and  the complainant should have approached DAC & FW Department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim and decision of said department would have been binding on State Government/Insurance Company/Banks/farmers but instead of that the complainants had approached the District Consumer Commission (earlier Consumer Forum) with malafide intention by violating standard terms and conditions of the scheme. Further, the complainant had never given any intimation to the insurance company regarding any loss despite the fact that there is a condition for immediate intimation of claim within 48 hours of loss. It has been further averred that no proof of loss or weather report has been submitted with insurance company by the complainant and even quantification of loss cannot be determined in absence of necessary survey and there is no privity of contract between complainants and insurance company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of insurance company.  Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-1 to Annexure-C15 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

 5.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Sh.Manjeet Deswal, Branch Manager as Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure RW/1 and Annexure RW1/2 whereas learned counsel for the Op No.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Saurav Khullar as Ex.RW3/A alongwith documents Annexure RW3/1 and Annexure RW3/2.  

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

7.                The grievance of the complainant is that his crop got damaged but he has not received any insurance claim till today despite the fact that the concerned department had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per acre. Ops No.1 & 2 in their joint reply have submitted that the amount of premium was deducted on account of cotton crop; that the account of the complainant was opened after taking voter ID and as per the government instructions aadhar card is mandatory, therefore, he was directed to submit the aadhar card  but his name was not tally with the documents, therefore, the premium so deducted from his account was received back with a direction to get the name of the complainant corrected; that the complainant was duly intimated through SMS as well as registered post (Annexure R1/1).

8.                          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 complainants have not led any satisfactory evidence either oral or documentary qua getting the alleged loss of crop concerned inspected, through any expert/competent authority. More-over, 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.

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. 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: 12.09.2023

                                                                                                        

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