Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/434/2018

Vinod Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Bhal Singh

01 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.434 of 2018.                                                              Date of Instt.: 04.12.2018.                                                                         Date of Decision: 01.06.2023

V inod Kumar son of Mohan Lal Bishnoi, resident of village Dhanger Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                               Versus     

1.Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Fatehabad  through its Branch Manager.

2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited SCO No.156-156, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager/Divisional Manager, Branch Office, Chanidgarh.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                   Sh.Bhal Singh, Advocate for complainant.                                                         Sh.Dinesh Gera, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                      Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.2.                                                   

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

ORDER

SMT. HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER

                     Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is owner in possession of land as mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint situated at Village Dhanger Tehsil & 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) from Op No.1; that the complainant got the standing cotton crop insured with the Op No.2 and in this regard amount being insurance premium of Rs.3110.25/- was debited from his account by Op No.1 on 28.07.2017 and credited in the account of Op No.2; that the sown cotton crop of the complainant got damaged due to heavy rain fall, hail storm, snow fall; that the concerned department had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per acre on account of crop loss but he has not been given any compensation on account of loss of insured crop despite the fact that other field neighbours have already received the compensation; that Op No.2 being insurer of the crop is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainants on loss of crop suffered by them; that despite several requests, the claim for lost crops has not been paid by the Ops, due to which complainants have suffered great financial losses. Hence, this complaint.

2.                          Op No.1 filed its reply wherein it has been mentioned that insurance premium to the tune of Rs.3110.25/- was debited from the account of complainant on 28.07.2017 for insurance of paddy crop as per application of the complainant, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of bank/Op No.1. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          Op No.2 filed its reply and submitted that as per the complaint, loss of cotton crop has been effected but in fact the crop of paddy was insured, therefore, there is mis-match of the crop; that the complainant never intimated to the answering Op for alleged loss of crop despite the fact that it had to be submitted as per the operational guidelines, therefore, due to this further process such as survey of damaged field could not be conducted as localized claim is not payable in the absence of any claim; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  Preliminary objections such as cause of action, concealment of material facts and jurisdiction etc. have also been taken. Other contentions of the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.              

4.                          In evidence, learned counsel for the complainants tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of tendered affidavit of Sh.Navjeet Singh, Deputy Manager Annexure R1 and documents Annexure R2 to Annexure R6, whereas OP No.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Ajit Singh, Branch Manager Ex.RW1/A with document Ex.R1.

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

6.                          The complainant has come with the plea that his crop got damaged but despite it being insured, the Ops did not make the compensation as per the insurance policy and due to inaction on the part of Ops he has suffered mental agony, harassment besides financial loss. On the other the Ops have resisted the claim of complainant on the ground the complainant himself got insured the paddy crop but now he is claiming loss on account of damage of cotton crop. Learned counsel for the Ops drew the attention of this Commission towards the documents such as copy of proposal form (Annexure R2),  policy schedule (Annexure R3) and Interview cum Assessment Form for cash credit/short term duly signed by the complainant Ex.R1. Perusal of these documents shows that the paddy crop was insured but it is strange that the complainants by way of this complaint are claiming compensation for the cotton crop.

7.                         Learned counsel for the Ops further resisted the claim of the complainants on the ground that the complainant did not intimate the Ops qua the damage of crop within 48 hours as per the operational guidelines; therefore, the Ops could not get the survey of the damaged crop done. 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:01.06.2023                                                                      

                                                     (Harisha Mehta)                        (Rajbir Singh)                                                                                   Member                                President