Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/78/2019

Sudhir Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of Patiala - Opp.Party(s)

M.S Godara

11 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.78 of 2019.                                                                Date of Instt.:  05.02.2019.                                                                        Date of Decision: 11.09.2023

Sudhir Kumar son of Balbir Singh, resident of village Bodiwali, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1.State Bank of Patiala now merged with State Bank of India, Branch G.T. Road, Fatehabad Tehsil and District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 150-156, Sector – 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its authorised signatory.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                  Sh.M.S.Godara, Advocate for complainant.                                                         Sh.Sanjeev Mehta, 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 are having land situated at village Bodiwali Tehsil & District Fatehabad, the detail thereof is mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint. It is alleged that the complainant had sown cotton crops on the land in question and had also availed Kisan Credit Card (KCC) facility bearing account No.65176705847; that the complainant 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.3830.97/- was debited from his 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 cotton crop of the complainant got damaged and complainant intimated agriculture department/Ops to inspect the loss suffered; that the losses were assessed Rs.25,000/- 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. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence this complaint.

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.3830.97/- was debited on 31.07.2017 i.e. the last date as per operational  guidelines of PMFBY but while uploading the date on portal of the Central Government, the data could not be uploaded due to non submission of the copy of Aadhar Card or its enrolment number of the complainant; that the insurance company does not accept any such amount on account of insurance of the crops in case the detailed information of the concerned farmer is not uploaded on the portal; that the amount of premium  was credited in the loan account of the complainant  on 23.08.2017 as the complainant did not submit the aadhar card with the bank despite repeated requests; therefore, the question of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice does not arise at all. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.

3.                          Op No.1 filed its separate reply wherein it has been submitted that the excess premium was refunded to the bank as per its request; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the insurance companies should have received the premium for coverage either from bank, channel partner insurance intermediary or directly and any loss in transit due to negligence by these agencies or non remittance of premium, the concerned bank/intermediaries shall be liable for the payment of claims; that the complainant should have approached to DAC/FW department for any kind of grievance related to scheme or claim but instead of filing any complaint before the DAC/FW they have approached this Commission with bad intention by violating the standard terms and conditions, therefore the insurance company cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 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 CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C5 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

 5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Smt.Sarpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Assistant Manager, Annexure R1 alongwith documents Annexure R2 to Annexure R5 whereas learned counsel for the Op No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh.Amit Pannu Ex.RW6/A alongwith documents Annexure R7 to Annexure R10. Thereafter, evidence of the Ops was closed.

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

7.                          The complainant by way of the present complaint has submitted that he got his cotton crop (kharif 2017) insured with the Op No.1 and regarding this an amount of Rs.3830.97/- was deducted by Op No.1 on account of insurance premium but when their crop got damaged and claim was lodged regarding this, none of the Ops have paid the claimed amount despite the fact that concerned agriculture department had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.23023/- per hectare in the notified area.

8.                          Per contra, it has been argued by learned counsel for the OPs that the complainant has violated the guidelines of the insurance policy as they have neither submitted the requisite Aadahar card with the concerned bank despite request letter Annexure R7 and notice Annexure R8 issued to the complainant, therefore, the deducted premium (Rs.3831/-) which was further credited in the account of the complainant on 23.08.2017 (Annexure R9) within a short span i.e. much before the loss to the crop of the farmers, if any.

9.                          Undisputedly, the entry regarding deduction of Rs.3830.97/- on account of insurance premium was deducted from the account of the complainant as depicted in Annexure R9 but in this very document the entry regarding crediting of Rs.3831/- on 23.08.2017  has also been mentioned which clearly reveals that the crop of the complainant was not never insured. Further, at the time of damaging of crop, there was no privity of contract amongst the parties.  Moreover, the present complaint was filed on 05.02.2019 i.e. after receiving the alleged deducted amount of Rs.3831/- by the complainant from the bank as is mentioned in Annexure R9. The Op No.2/insurance company has taken a specific plea that the premium amount of many farmers have already been returned to the bank but in the list of 175 farmers, placed on file by learned counsel for the Op No.1/bank during the course of arguments, whose payment has been returned by the insurance company does mention the name of the complainant, therefore,  it is proved that the crop of the complainant was never insured. Further, 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 that any of the Ops is involved in deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. On one hand, the complainant himself has not complied with the guidelines of the policy and on the other hand filed the present complaint against the Ops by concealing the material facts from this Commission, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at a conclusion that the complainant has not been able to prove their case by leading cogent and clinching evidence.

10.                        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:11.09.2023

                                                                                                         

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