Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/405/2018

Subhash Chander - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombord General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Subash Jayani

10 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.405 of 2018.                                                             

Date of Instt.:  21.11.2018.                                                                        Date of Decision: 10.07.2023.

1.Subash Chander 2.Jagjeet Singh 3.Sukhdev Singh sons of Mangtu Ram resident of village Thuiyan Sub Tehsil Bhattu Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1.ICICI  Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. The statement building Plot No.149 Phase-1Industrial Area, Chandigarh.

2.Punjab National Bank Branch Bhattu Kalan, Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                  Sh.S.C.Jyani, Advocate for complainant.                                                    Sh.Vishnu Delu, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                      Sh.M.K.Dharnia, 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 complainants are agriculturists by profession and are having land situated at Village Thuiyan Sub Tehsil Bhattu Tehsil & District Fatehabad. It is alleged that the complainants had sown cotton/bajra crops on the land in question and had also availed Kisan Credit Card (KCC) facility bearing No.0565000100100781; that the complainants got the standing crop insured under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the Op No.1 and in this regard an amount of Rs.2043.10 was debited from their 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 crop of the complainants got damaged and complainants intimated agriculture department/Ops to inspect the loss suffered; that the losses were assessed and other farmers have already received the claim  on account of lost/damaged crop; 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 compliant.

2.                          Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately.  Op No.1 in its reply has submitted that the no such premium was ever received by the replying OP as the premium was deducted after the cut-off date i.e. 31.07.72017;  that except localised claims all other perils were to be finalised by the government agencies therefore, there is no role of the replying Op; that the complainant had to give intimation regarding crop loss within 48 hours but the complainant has not done so, therefore, survey could not be got conducted;  that there is no privity of contract between the replying Op and complainant; 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.

3.                          OP No.2 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, concealment of material facts from this Commission and jurisdiction etc.; that an amount of Rs.2043/- was debited on 02.08.2016 from the account of complainants and was remitted to the insurance company; that no intimation with regard to damaging of crop has ever been given to the replying Op; 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.

4.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant No.1 Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C6 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. No evidence on behalf of the Ops have been led and the same was closed by the order of the Commission dated 14.03.2023.

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

6.                          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. Though the complainant has placed on file assessment report with regard to crop loss (Annexure C4) but this report is also not helpful to the case of the complainants as at the bottom of this report, it has been mentioned by the concerned authorities that the percentage of loss cannot be assessed, at this stage, due to high water level and rain. The complainants have 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 complainants have 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: 10.07.2023

                                                                                                        

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

               Member                               Member                                             President