Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/235/2019

Bharat Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Yogesh Gupta

11 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.            

                                                        Complaint Case No.235 of 2019.                                                              Date of Instt.: 11.06.2019.                                                                         Date of Decision: 11.12.2023.

Bharat Singh son of Megha Ram resident of Bhattu Kalan Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                            ...Complainant.

                                     Versus     

1.HDFC Bank Ltd.G.T. Road, Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

2.Chief L.D.M.Punjab National Bank (Lead Bank Office), Fatehabad.

                                                                                     ...Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                  Sh.Aman Bhati and Sh.Yogesh Gupta, Advocates for                                 complainant.                                                                                               Sh.Amit Wadhera, Advocate for Op No.1.                                                    Sh.M.K.Dharnia, Advocate for OP No.2.        

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                  SH.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 Bhattu 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) facility with account No.50200006026667;  that the insurance of the standing crop was to be got done without moving any application;  that the complainant came to know that his cotton crops for the year 2018 was not insured, therefore, he contacted Op No.1 and enquired the matter; that it was intimated to him that the window has been closed and insurance cannot be done; that other farmers of the same vicinity have received the compensation on account of loss of crop; that due to inaction on the part of the Ops, his crop could be got insured; that the complainant requested the Ops to make the loss got but to no effect. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

2.                          Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately.

3.                          Op No.1 filed its separate reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability, locus standi, barred by limitation and jurisdiction etc. have been taken. It has been further submitted that the complainant himself is at fault as he had not informed about the change of sowing of different crop than the declaration made in the loan documents; that it was the legal duty of the complainant to inform the OP No.1 about the changing of crop but it has not been done so. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the compliant has been made.

4.                          Op No.2 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to suppression of material facts, cause of action, maintainability, jurisdiction, concealment of material facts and complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer as per provisions of CP Act. It has been further submitted that the complainant had filed an application before CM Window and the same was sent to Op No.1. Other contentions have been controverterd and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

5.                          To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 alongwith documents Anneuxre-C2 to Annexure C9 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 has produced on case file documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R5. No evidence on behalf of Op No.2 has been led despite availing ample opportunities and the same was closed by the order of the Commission on 22.03.2023.

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.                          In the present complaint, the complainant has claimed compensation on account of loss of cotton crop, which was not insured by Op No.1 despite the fact that no application was required for the crop insurance under PMFBY but perusal of Annexure R3 reveals that the complainant had never insured the cotton crop rather the premium, if any, was debited on account of paddy crop as is evident through Annexure R3, therefore, at this stage, the complainant cannot claim the compensation on account of loss of cotton crop.  Moreover, learned counsel for the Op No.1, during the course of arguments, has produced an authorisation/declaration and undertaking and drew the attention of the declaration made by the complainant, which is reproduced as under:

I/We have been sanctioned a loan of Rs.6,15,000/- by way of crop loan for cultivation of the crops. As per your bank’s policy crop insurance is a pre condition. However, I am not interested in incurring expenditure on crop insurance premium.

 

This document is duly signed/thumb marked by the complainant himself. It is not the case of the complainant that his signature and thumb impression were taken by way of coercion and pressure.  It is worthwhile to mention here the preamble of the Consumer Protection Act is benevolent in nature but it does not give any liberty to anyone to take undue advantage thereof. In the present matter on one hand the complainant himself has denied for getting his crop insured and on the other hand filed the present compliant on false and baseless grounds, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at the conclusion that the present complaint deserves dismissal.

9.                          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:11.12.2023

                                                                                                        

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