Date of filing:-22/03/2017.
Date of Order:-06/08/2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 15 of 2017.
Kulamani Sahu, aged about 30(thirty) years, son of Sibajal Sahu, R/o. Vill- Purena, Po. Jaring, Via- Bijepur, Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
Vrs.
Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Barpali Branch, At/Po. Barpali, Ps. Barpali, Dist. Bargarh.
National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, through D.A.O., Bargarh.
Project Director-Cum-Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bargarh, At/Po. Bargarh, Ps/Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri S.P.Mahapatra, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one):- Sri A.K.Patra, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two)
and the Opposite Party No.3(three):- Sri S.K.Naik, Associate Lawyer, Bargarh.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.06/08/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief fact of the case ;-
The case of the Complainant in brief is that he has incurred a crop loan from the Opposite Party No.1(one) amounting to Rs.70,000/-(Rupees seventy thousand)only on Dt.10.08.2015 while releasing the same loan amount the Opposite Party No.1(one) has deducted certain amount towards the premium to insure the crop of the Complainant, and his further case is that during that period Government declared the same area as drought effected area for 52 %(fifty percent) entitling him for the insurance amount to the tune of Rs.36,000/-(Rupees thirty six thousand)only against his cultivated land vide Khata No.13 of Mouza-Manpur, but surprisingly when the Complainant asked for the Insurance amount the Opposite Party No.1(one) replied him that no amount has been received by them towards the insurance amount, for that as per the Complainant is a case of deficiencies on the part of the Opposite Parties for which he suffered a lot mentally, physically and financially, thus has filed the case claiming an amount of Rs.36,400/-(Rupees thirty six thousand)only towards loss of crop and the insured amount along with an amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only towards his mental agony and an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards litigation expenses, and in support of his case has filed some documents (i) Pass book of the Complainant vide account No-239501000002885 of the Opposite Party No.1(one), (ii) Counter folio of receipt slip vide the said Account No.
Perused the complaint and the documents, and on hearing the counsel for the Complainant the case was admitted and notice was served on the Opposite Parties in response to which they appeared through their Advocate filed their versions, and on perusal of the version filed by the Opposite Party No.1(one) it is a denial one to the case of the Complainant and has averted in his version that it acts as post office only in transferring the funds and has got no role besides that, further it has denied it’s responsibility contending therein that one Chandra Sekhar Sahu also has incurred a loan for the self same land vide the Khata No.13(thirteen) of Manpur for an amount of Rs.97,721/-(Rupees ninety seven thousand seven hundred twenty one)only which is still out standing in his name thus has claimed the Complainant to be dis-entitled to any insurance amount and as the loan amount is pending against the concerned land the payment of the premium could not be made as it could not be uploaded in their system as such it has got no deficiencies on it’s part, and furtherance has alleged that since the Complainant has already availed the insurance amount and also has availed loan from the Utkal Gramin Bank, Jarring under Bijepur P.s. on the same land hence has suppressed the materials facts before the Forum .
And so far as the version of the Opposite Party No.2(two) & 3(three) is concerned it has denied to have received any premium as alleged by the Complainant but it has come to their notice through their official inquiry that the Complainant has insured his crop through The Opposite Party No.1(one) by paying the premium amount on Dt.10.08.2015, but since it has not been received by them they have got no role in sanctioning any insurance amount in his favor and have not committed any deficiencies in rendering service on their part as such prays before the Forum to dismiss the case against them.
On perusal of the Complaint, the versions of the Opposite Parties some below mentioned issues have come up before us to adjudicate the case.
Whether the Opposite Parties have committed any deficiencies in rendering service towards the Complainant ?
Whether the Complainant is entitled to the claim amount ?
While dealing with the Issues No.1(one), it has been observed that the Opposite Party No.1(one) has given loan to the Complainant also it has been observed that it has admitted it’s duty of transferring the premium amount to the Opposite Party No.2(two) & No.3(three) but has done so which clearly established from the version of the Opposite Party No. 2(two) & No.3(three) wherein they have stated in Para No.5(five) that from their departmental inquiry they have ascertained that the Complainant has insured his crop through the Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt.10.08.2015 and has denied to have received any such amount from him as such they don’t have any responsibility and thus the case against them is not maintainable against them. Beside that on the petition filed by the Opposite Parties Forum was pleased to issue direction to the alleged P.A.C.S. Bijepur to ascertain the fact as to whether any amount is outstanding dues against the Complainant, to which the said Society has replied vide it’s Letter No.2(two) on Dt.30.04.2018 stating therein that the Complainant is not even a member of their society, out of which it has become clear that the allegation against the Complainant is baseless thus we hold it as a case of deficiencies in rendering service against him in as much as has failed to file a scrape of paper or adduce any evidence to substantiate his allegation against the Complainant hence all of his allegation made by it in it’s version, is proved to be false, hence in our view he is liable for his such acts as per the provision envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence the issue is answered in favor of the Complainant. And since the Opposite Party No.2(two) & No.3(three) has got no role to play in the case of non-receipt of the insurance premium from the Opposite Party No.1(one) nor from the Complainant, as such in our view both of them are exonerated from the liability claimed against them.
Secondly while dealing with the issues with regard to the entitlement of the claim made by the Complainant, since the Opposite Party No.1(one) has measurably failed in establishing his allegation against the Complainant and has been proved to be deficient in rendering proper service to the Complainant, in our view is liable thereunder as per the provision of the Act accordingly it is answered in favor of the Complainant, hence the order follows.
O R D E R.
Hence in view of the prevailing facts and circumstances of the case the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to pay an amount of Rs.36,400/-(Rupees thirty six thousand four hundred)only with an interest @ 6%(six percent) per annum from the date of filing of this case i.e Dt.22/03/2017 till the date of Order towards the compensation of the loss sustained by the Complainant due to non-remittance of the premium amount to the insurance agencies of the Govt. and also further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards the mental financial loss undergone by him and litigation expenses within thirty days from the receipt of the order, in default of which the total awarded amount would carry an interest @ 9 %(nine percent) per annum till the actual realization of the same.
Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Forum to-day on Dt.06/08/2018 in the result the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party No.1(one) and the Opposite Party No.2(two) & No.3(three) are exonerated from any liability, and the case is disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree,
( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (W)
