Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/47/2019

Hawa Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sachdev Bishnoi

16 Aug 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHABAD.

                                                         Complaint Case No.47 of 2019.                                                               Date of institution: 16.01.2019/18.01.2019.                                                  Date of decision:16.08.2023.     

Hawa Singh son of Banwari Lal r/o village Chaplamori Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch Bighar Chowk, G.T.Road, 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 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

Present:          Sh.Sachdev Bishnoi, Advocate, for the complainant.                                   Sh.Inder Singh Sihag, 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

                    Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is owner in possession of land situated at Village Chaplamori Tehsil & District Fatehabad, the detail of which is mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint; that the complainant got the standing crop insured under the scheme “Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna” with the Op No.2 and in this regard insurance premium was debited from his account by Op No.1, which was credited in the account of Op No.2; that the crops of the complainant got damaged and complainant intimated agriculture department to inspect the loss suffered; that the losses were assessed Rs.20,000/- per hectare; that as per 0.8 hectare  the compensation comes to Rs.16,000/- despite several requests no amount of on account of loss insured crop has 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 and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint.  

2.                           On notice, Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. OP No.1 filed the written version raising preliminary objections such as complaint is wrong, against law and facts, cause of action, concealment of material facts and locus standi etc.; that an amount of Rs.918.23/- was deducted from the account of the complainant as insurance premium for wheat crop with regard to land 18 kanal 0 marla at village Bigher and 4 kanal 0 marla of village Matana  and was remitted to the Op No.2; that if the complainant has suffered an crop loss, in that eventuality the insurance company is liable to indemnify the loss of crop; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of replying Op, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable against it. 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.2 in its reply has submitted that the role of insurance company is only to pay claim in accordance with scheme of PMFSY, therefore, it cannot be held liable for any mistake done by either complainant himself or bank of the complainant; that in the present complaint the complainant is claiming wheat crop loss but the said loss is not covered under the reason inundation and hailstorm; that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission as it has been filed with bad intention; that the complainant has never given any intimation  to the insurance company for loss of crop and even there is neither any survey report nor there is any proof of loss or weather report;  that there is no cause of action and no privity of contract for filing this complaint against replying Op; that there is no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of replying Op in this matter. In the end, prayer for the dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Annexure C1, alongwith documents Anneuxre-C2 & Annexure C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                          On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Ajit Singh, Branch Manager, Annexure R1 alongwith documents Annexure-R2 to Annexure-R4 whereas OP No.2 did not produce any evidence despite availing several opportunities, so, the evidence of OP No.2 was closed vide commission order dt.04.07.2022.

6.                          We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.                          As per complainant the complainant is having agricultural land at village Chaplamori and the premium for the insurance of crops standing on that land was deducted by the Op No.1 which was further remitted to Op No.2. Op No.1 in its reply has admitted that premium of Rs.918.23/- for wheat crop with regard to land measuring 18 kanal 0 marla of village Bigher and 4 kanal 0 marla of village Matana was deducted from the KCC account of the complainant bearing No.81748800014302 and this fact finds support from document (sanction of mutation in bank’s favour) which is placed on file as Annexure R2. The complainant in support of his case has placed on case file loss assessment report Annexure C2 but perusal of this document reveals that this report belongs to village Chapla Mori. There is nothing on the case file to show that the crops allegedly sown by the complainant on the land which falls in village Chapla Mori was ever insured with the OP No.2 and the Op No.1/bank had ever deducted premium for the same. The complainant has failed to prove on the case file that there was privity of contract between the parties.  More-over, 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 deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of any of the opposite parties.

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: 16.08.2023                                                                                                       

 

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