Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/469/2018

Nirmaljeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombord General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Bhal Singh

09 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.469 of 2018.                                                              Date of Instt.:  19.12.2018.                                                                        Date of Decision: 09.05.2023.

Nirmaljit Singh son of Sh.Teja Singh resident of village Saniyana, Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1.State Bank of India, Branch, GT Road Saniyana Village Saniyana Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad  through its Branch Manager.

2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 156-159, IInd Floor, Sector – 9, Chandigarh through its Manager.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                  Sh.Bhal Singh, Advocate for complainant.                                                          Sh.S.K.Gurditta, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                     Sh.U.K.Gera, 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 is having land situated at Village Saniyana Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad. It is alleged that the complainant had sown cotton crops on the land in question and had also availed Kisan Credit Card (KCC) facility vide loan rapat No.267 dated 09.10.2013 bearing account No.55131446414; that the complainant got the standing crop insured under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the Op No.2 on 31.07.2017 and in this regard an amount of Rs.5012.22 was debited from his account by Op No.1 as premium of the insurance in question, which was credited in the account of Op No.2; that due to heavy rainfall, hailstorm, snow fall and other reason, the sown cotton crop of the complainant in 71 kanal 11 marlas land got damaged and complainant intimated agriculture department/Ops to inspect the loss suffered; that the losses were assessed Rs.24,004.06/-; 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. In the end, prayer has been made for allowing compensation for lost crops in sum of Rs.2,14,536/-. Rs.1,00,000/- also claimed towards mental agony and harassment has also been claimed. Any other relief at the discretion of this Commission also sought.

2.                          Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately.  Op No.1 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 an amount of Rs.5012.22/- was debited on 31.07.2017 from the account of complainant and gross amount of Rs.14,21,478.21/- was deposited with Op No.2 vide UTR No. SBIN517226695538 on 14.08.2017 but the Op No.2 returned premium amount on 14.06.2018 on the ground of not submitting of aadhar card by the complainant; 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.2 filed its separate reply wherein it has been submitted that the amount of premium was returned to the bank of the farmer/complainant, therefore, the complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer; that that the amount of portal premium was received from the concerned bank after the cut-off date without documents of the farmers, therefore, sum of Rs.616774/- was refunded to the bank on the request of the bank vide PID 99389188; that a letter No.13015/01/2016-Cr.II dated 07.02.2018 was issued to all the insurance company  to return the amounts to concerned banks by 15^th March, 2018 wherein banks have remitted the premium after cut-off date; that the role of the insurance company is only to pay the claim in accordance with the “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” but the insurance company cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant or the bank of the complainant; that the complainant has never intimated to the answering Op for alleged loss of crop despite the fact that it had to be submitted within 48 hours, therefore, due to this further process such as survey of damaged field could not be conducted; that only localized claims were to be decided by the answering Op and other risks were to be handled by the government agencies; 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 Annexure A-1 alongwith documents Anneuxre-1 to Annexure-4 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

 5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Rameshwar Dass Bhobria, Branch Manager, Annexure RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-RX & Annexure-RY whereas OP No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Jai Singh, Sr.Executive Legal Ex.RW1/A and document Annexure RW1. Thereafter, evidence of the Ops was closed.

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

7.                          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 qua getting the alleged loss of crop concerned inspected, through any expert/competent authority.  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.

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: 09.05.2023

                                                                                                        

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