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. 17 of 2017.
Sadananda Sahu, aged about 22(twenty two) years, S/o- Rana Sahu R/o-Vill-Purana, P.o. 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 ;-
Being persuaded by the provision U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 the Complainant has preferred to file the case on the allegation of unfair trade practice and deficiencies of service against the Opposite Parties as envisaged hereunder, that the Complainant has incurred an agricultural loan amounting to Rs.69,000/-(Rupees sixty nine thousand)only from the Opposite Party Bank on Dt.17.08.2015 for cultivation of his land situated in the village-Purena of Samaleipadar and that at the time of the disbursement of the loan amount some amount was debited by the Opposite Party No.1(one) towards payment of premium of insurance to indemnify the loss if any occur of the crops of the Complainant.
Further case of the Complainant is that during the year 2015-16 Government has declared drought effected area panchayat wise and since the area of cultivation of the Complainant was also coming under the notified area @ 52%(fifty two percent) he was entitled to the same benefit amounting to Rs.35,620/-(Rupees thirty five thousand six hundred twenty)only, but his case is that when he asked for the benefit from the insurance, it came to his notice that no premium of insurance has been transferred to the Insurance authority i.e. the Opposite Party No.2(two) by the Opposite Party No.1(one) though the said premium amount was debited from his loan account at the time of disbursement of the same, which in his opinion is an unfair trade practice and deficiencies of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1(one) for which he has suffered mental agony and physical harassment thus has claimed an amount of Rs.35,629/-(Rupees thirty five thousand six hundred twenty nine)only towards indemnification of crop loss, Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only towards mental & physical harassment and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only as litigation expenses, And in support of his case the Complainant has relied on the Pass book issued in favor of him by the Opposite Party No.1(one) against his loan.
Having gone through the Complaint, the document filed by him and on hearing the concerned counsel for the Complainant the case was admitted and notice was issued in favor of the Opposite Parties and on being noticed all the Opposite Parties appeared before the Forum and filed their version.
The version of the Opposite Party No.1(one) is an evasive one, denying it’s liability as it acts as mere a post office for transferring the funds besides the same has got no role to play in the matter of Insurance, and further has stated that he has already availed the benefit for the self same land including the insurance and has denied to have committed any deficiencies in rendering service and that he is not liable for any Compensation.
And so far as the version of the Opposite Parties No.2(two) & No.3(three) is concerned they have jointly filed the same denying the case of the Complainant, and further they have stated a new case of the Complainant that he has obtained a loan of Rs.69,000/-(Rupees sixty nine thousand)only from the Opposite Party No.1(one) and PNB, Barpali Branch wherein the amount of premium has been deposited, further they have jointly admitted the Complainant as being lonee farmer as such they have got no role to deal with the insurance and further has made averments that the Complainant has not disclosed as to whether the Opposite Party No.1(one) has received any claim in favor of the Complainant or not, and as such have denied to have their liability in paying any compensation towards the claim of the Complainant and prayed to dismiss the case. In the mean time the Complainant through his advocate filed an amendment petition to rectify some typographical error committed at the time of filing of the case to which Opposite Parties did not object in any manner hence the same was allowed and carried on as such in the Complaint petition.
On perusal of the complaint, the document filed by him and the versions filed by the Opposite Parties and the counsels of the Parties advanced their respective arguments in support of their cases vehemently, so considering all the aspect in to our view, we feel it to adjudicate the case on the following.
Whether the Complainant is a consumer as per Consumer protection Act 1986 ?
Whether there has been deficiencies of service on the Part of the Opposite Parties ?
Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed for ?
Firstly while analyzing the Issue No.1(one), on perusal of record it came to our Notice that the Complainant has got an Account vide No.239501000004796 in the Branch of the Opposite Party No.1(one) and also it has been admitted by all the Opposite Parties about the same in their version and also it has been admitted by the Parties that the Complainant is a lonee farmer and it reveals from the document filed by him that an amount of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred)only has been deducted while disbursing the loan amount of Rs.69,000/-(Rupees sixty nine thousand)only in the said account of the Complainant and since the said account is continuing since Dt.26.05.2001, thus in our view the Complainant is a consumer for the purpose of the case, as such it is answered in favor of him.
Secondly while considering the Issue No.2(two) with regard to question as to whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in giving service to the Complainant or not, in this regard we scrutinized the materials available in the record and found that an amount of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred)only has been debited from the said loan amount while disbursing the same but it has not been transferred to any insurance authority on the contrary the Opposite Party No.1(one) has admitted in the first para of it’s version that it acts as a post office and not committed any deficiencies in giving service to the Complainant which means that it has transferred the premium amount to the insurance authority but there is no evidence to that effect on the other hand the Opposite Parties have alleged in their version that the Complainant has already availed the benefit for the self same land but we did not find any materials to that effect and also it is a mandatory provision as envisaged in the circular of the Government time to time that in case of a lonee farmer it is the bounden duty of the concerned Bank to remit the insurable premium to insure the crop of the land when the area of the land pledged before it in case it is declared by the Government as drought effected but in this it has been observed that though the premium amount has been deducted from the loan account of the Complainant and also has admitted to acted upon as a post office transferring the same to the insurance agencies but physically has not been transferred which amounts to deficiencies of service on the part of the Opposite Party hence our view with this regard is answered in favor of the Complainant, for which the Opposite Party No.1(one) is solely responsible and liable thereunder.
Thirdly with regard to the question as to whether the Complainant is entitled to the claim amount, in this regard since we have already discussed in detail in our foregoing paragraphs and have also opined in favor of the Complainant, now it is obvious upon us to answer in favor of the Complainant and so far as since the Opposite Party No.2(two) and No.3(three) have not received the premium amount from the Opposite Party No.1(one) in favor of the Complainant, they are exonerated from any liability, hence order follows.
O R D E R.
Hence in view of the above facts and circumstances, the Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to pay an amount of Rs.35,620/-(Rupees thirty five thousand six hundred twenty)only towards his insurable interest with interest @ 6 %(six percent) from the date of filing the case this case i.e. Dt.22/03/2017 till the date of Order towards the compensation against the loss of crops and also further directed to pay amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards the compensation amount against the mental agony and litigation expenses sustained by him, in default of which the total amount would carry an interest @ 9%(nine percent) from the date of filing of the case till the actual realization of the same, and the Opposite Parties No.2(two) & No.3(three) are exonerated from any liability.
Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Forum, in the result the complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party No.1(one), and the same is disposed off to-day i.e. on Dt. 06/08/2018.
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)
