Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/278/2018

Bahal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vijaya Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Sharma

10 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.278 of 2018.                                                             

Date of Instt.: 20.09.2018.                                                                         Date of Decision: 10.07.2023.

Bahal Singh son of Chunni Lal resident of village Bhodia Khera Tehsil & District Fatehabad

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1.Vijaya Bank, Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.                                   2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Area Manager Abhishek Yadav, Agriculture Business.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                   Sh.Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for complainant.                               Sh.M.K.Dharnia 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 as mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint situated at Village Hizrawan Kalan 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) facilities with account No.831608651000143; that the complainant got the standing cotton crop insured with the Op No.2 and in this regard amount being insurance premium was debited from his account by Op No.1 and credited in the account of Op No.2; that the sown cotton crop of the complainant got damaged and the land of the complainant was inspected; that the concerned department has assessed the claim to the tune of Rs.50,000/- per hectare; that Op No.1 being insurer of the crop is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant on loss of crop suffered by the complainant; that despite several requests and serving of legal notice, 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/bank 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.868.01/- for insuring the paddy crop (khariff 2017), was debited from the loan account of the complainant on 31.07.2017 as per his disclosure and thereafter it was sent to Op no.2/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.

3.                          Op No.2/insurance company filed its reply wherein it has been 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 the loss of crop due to heavy rainfall, hailstorm and snowfall is not covered under the guidelines; 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.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure C1 and affidavit of Sh.Prithvi Singh as Annexure C2  alongwith documents Annexure C3 to Annexure C12.

 

5.                          On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of tendered affidavit of Sh.Jai Singh, Senior Executive Legal Annexure R1 and documents Annexure R2 to Annexure R6, whereas OP No.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Pankaj Kumar, Branch Manager Annexure RW1/A alongwith with documents Annexure R7 to Annexure R9.

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

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.                          Undisputedly, the complainant is the consumer of the Op No.2, as is evident through photo copy of statement of account placed on case file as Annexure C3. 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.

9.                          The complainant in his complaint has mentioned 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 R3),copy of policy (Annexure R2) and copy of request for annual review duly thumb marked by the complainant (Annexure R8). Perusal of these documents 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.

10.                       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.

11.                        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: 10.07.2023  

                  

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