Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/347/2019

Ram Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Universal Sampo General Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

K.K Jangra

07 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.347 of 2019.                                                              Date of Instt.: 28.08.2019.                                                                         Date of Decision: 07.08.2023.

Ram Kumar aged 66 years son of Shri Shri Bagdawat resident of village Bosti Tshil Tohana & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1.Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited Unit No.401, 4^th Floor Sangam Complex 127, Andheri Kerla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400059 through its Branch/Divisional Manager.

2.State Bank of India, village Sanyana, Sirsa Chandigarh Road District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                  Sh.K.K.Jangra, Advocate for complainant.                                                         Sh. U.K.Gera, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                                  Sh.Sanjeev Mehta, Advocate for Op No.2.                                                  

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                                                    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 Bosti Tehsil Tohana 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) facilities with account No.65078559806; that the complainant got the standing kharif crop (Rice, Bazra and cotton) insured with the Op No.1 on 30.07.2018 and in this regard insurance premium to the tune of Rs.2414.88/- was debited from his account by Op No.2 and credited in the account of Op No.1; that the standing crops of the complainant got damaged and despite several requests the claim for damaged insured crop 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.                          Op No.1 filed its reply wherein it has been submitted that due to non providing of bank account details, claim details, assessment details and repudiation letter by the complainant, the replying Op is facing difficulty  for tracing out the claim file of the complainant, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. 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 amount of premium of Rs.2418/- for insuring the crop of the complainant was debited on 30.07.20128 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.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C1 and Annexure C7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of tendered affidavit of Sh.Parshant Vinod Shukla, Manager Legal Annexure Ex.R1 and Annexure R2 whereas OP No.2 has tendered affidavit of ShAnup Kalwaniya, Assistant Manager Ex.RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure R2/1 and Annexure R2/2.

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, Rice and Bajra’ 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.                          On the other hand learned counsel for the Op No.2/insurance company has argued that the complainant has not provided any bank detail, repudiation letter any other particulars, therefore, his claim filed could not be traced out. It has been further argued that as per data submitted by the bank, the insurance cover was taken for paddy crop and there was no such loss to the crop of the complainant, therefore, there remains no liability to pay any claim/compensation to the farmer.

8.                          The complainant in his complaint has mentioned that he had sown Rice, Bajra and Cotton in his land which got damaged and in support of his claim he has placed on case file loss assessment report made by concerned Agriculture Department (Annexure C2). In this very report, it has been mentioned that there is 20 % loss and the loss has been assessed at Rs.14800/- in village Bosti. Learned counsel for the Op No.1 has drawn the attention of this Commission towards document Annexure R2/1 i.e. bank account statement of the complainant and stressed hard that the complainant has already received the claim  amount to the tune of Rs.61936/- on 03.08.2019 on account of damaged insured crop, therefore,  he is not entitled for any claim.  

9.                          The present complaint was filed on 28.08.2019 and the Ops led their evidence on  07.07.2022 and 18.04.2023 respectively and the claim on account of damaged of sown crop was paid to the complainant far back in the year 2019, therefore,  it was the duty of the complainant to disclose this fact before this Commission but he has not do so, which shows that the present complaint has been filed by concealing the material facts from this Commission. The complainant has failed to show that this amount was not paid on account of damaged crop related to Kharif 2018. Hence, we have no hitch to reach at the conclusion that the present complaint deserves dismissal being infructuous and even the same has been filed by concealing the material facts.

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 being infructuous and filed by concealing the material facts from this Commission.  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:07.08.2023

                                                                                                        

                    (K.S.Nirana)                              (Rajbir Singh)                                                              Member                               President