Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/43/2019

Hanuman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Bank Of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

Sachdev Bishnoi

13 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.43 of 2019.                                                                Date of Instt.: 16.01.2019.                                                                         Date of Decision: 13.04.2023

Hanuman son of Sh.Kesara Ram resident of village Chaplamori Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1.Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance, Second Floor, SCO-3, HUDA Market, Sector-8, Karnal Haryana through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                  Sh.Sachdev Bishnoi, Advocate for complainant.                                        Sh.P.K.Jora, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                                      Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.2. 

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

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                     Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant is having agricultural land at village Chaplamori Tehsil & District Fatehabad; that he has availed KCC loan facility from Op No.1; that the Op No.1 has charged for the insurance of crop under PMFBY and remitted to the Op No.2; that due to hailstones, the sown cotton crop of the complainant got damaged and complainant intimated agriculture department/Ops to inspect the loss suffered on 09.03.2017; that the losses were assessed Rs.20,000/- per hectare; 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. Hence, this compliant.

2.                          Upon notice, the OPs-respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately. Op No.1 filed its separate reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability, concealment of material facts and locus standi etc. It has been further submitted that the complainant did not take any loan from 01.10.2016-17 to 31.12.2016-2017 from his loan account for the crop of Rabi 2016-2017, therefore, he was not loanee farmer for the crop of Rabi 2016-2017, therefore, no amount as insurance premium for the crop of Rabi 2017 was deducted from the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of replying OP. Other contentions of the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          Op No.2 in its separate reply has submitted that the claim of loss of cotton crop as alleged by the complainant is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy; that  the insurance company is not entitled for any mistake either done on the part of the complainant or on the part of bank, therefore, insurance company cannot be held liable for indemnifying the loss of crop; that the complainant should have approached the DAC and FW department for redressing the grievance but he has filed the present compliant despite the fact that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and insurance company;  that every farmer who wants to gets the benefits of KCC then he should have compulsorily get the insurance under the scheme of PMFSBY but no intimation has ever been received from any authorised agency or bank regarding loss of crop.  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 Annexure C/1 alongwith documents Anneuxre-C2 and Annexure C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

 5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the  OP No.1 has tendered affidavit of Aashish Soni, Manager as Annexure DW1/A and document Annexure D1 to Annexure D3. No evidence on behalf of Op No.2 has been led and the same was closed the order of Commission on 04.07.2022.

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

7.                          The complainant in his complaint has mentioned that he got his Rabi crop 2017 insured with Op No.2 and regarding this Op No.1 had deducted the insurance premium but perusal of the case file reveals that there is nothing on the case file to show that Rabi Crop, 2017 was ever insured with Op No.2 and regarding this Op No.1 had deducted insurance premium from the KCC loan account of the complainant. The complainant in his compliant has not mentioned as to how much money was deducted as insurance premium. Though he has placed on file copy of statement of bank but this document also does not reflect any amount deducted by the Op No.1 on account of insurance premium for insurance of Rabi Crop 2017.  As per the condition No. 6 (B) of the Notification dated 17.06.2016 (Annexure D1) All farmers availing seasonal Agricultural Operations (SAO) loans from financial institution (i.e. loaneee farmers) for the notified crops would be covered compulsory.  But the complainant has not produced any document on the case file showing that his KCC account was continued with the Op No.1/bank, which was the base for compulsory insurance cover being loanee.  Further as per the condition No. 6 (C) above said notification The scheme will be optional for the non-loanee farmers.  Again there is nothing on the record to show that the complainant has ever chosen this option.  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 to prove any kind of deficiency in service against any of the Ops.

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:13.04.2023

                                                                                                        

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