DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.423 of  2019.                                                             Date of Instt.: 14.10.2019.                                                                         Date of Decision: 03.01.2024.

Naresh Kumar son of Kalu Ram resident of village Nagpur, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1.Universal Sompo General Insurance Company  Limited, Plot No.EL-94 KLS Power TTC Industrial Area, MIDC Nahape, Navi Mumbai-400710 through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director/Authorised person.                                  2.Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Hizrawan Khurd, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                   Sh.N.R.Manjhu, Advocate for complainant.                                                Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                           Sh.Vinay Sharma, 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 as mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint situated at Village Nagpur Tehsil & Fatehabad. It is alleged that the complainant had sown cotton crops on the land in question and had also availed Kisan Credit Card (KCC) facilities with account No.2497008800021636; that the complainant got the standing cotton crop insured with the Op No.1 on 31.07.2018 and in this regard insurance premium to the tune of Rs.3595.35/- was debited from his account by Op No.2 and credited in the account of Op No.1; 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.

2.                          On notice Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. Op No.1 filed its reply wherein it has been submitted that the complainant has not submitted that the assessment report and even not intimated to it about the crop damaged, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed. Other contentions of the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.        

3.                          Op No.2 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to suppression of material facts, cause of action, maintainability and jurisdiction; that premium of Rs.3595.35/- on account of insurance of paddy crop was debited from the loan account of the complainant as per his disclosure and thereafter it was sent to Op no.1/insurance company without any delay, therefore, the insurance company is liable to make the payment of loss of crop, if any; 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 as Ex.C1 alongwith documents Annexure P1 to Annexure P9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered affidavit of Smt.Sanjana Bishnoi, as Ex.RW2/A and doucemnts Ex.RW2/1 and Ex.RW2/2. No evidence on behalf of Op No.1 has been led despite availing ample opportunities, therefore, the same was closed vide order dated 24.08.2023.

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

6.                          It has been argued by learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant had sown ‘cotton’ crops in his land, which was duly insured, under PMFBY with OP No.1, but when his crop got damaged, no compensation on account of insured crop was given to him despite the fact that it has completed all the formalities with regard to compensation of damaged cotton crop.

7.                          In our considered opinion the main controversy to be decided in this matter is as to whether there was any deficiency, on the part of any of the Ops, so as to compensate the complainant, qua alleged damage to his crops, as claimed in the complaint under consideration. 

8.                          The complainant in his complaint has mentioned that his cotton 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 Interview cum Assessment Form for cash credit/short term loan (crop Loan) Requirements application duly thumb marked/signed by the complainant (Annexure R2/1). Perusal of this document show that the paddy crop was insured but it is strange that the complainant by way of this complaint is claiming compensation for the cotton crop.

9.                         Learned counsel for the Ops further resisted the claim of the complainant 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.

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: 03.01.2024

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