Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/19/2018

Sri Sangram Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

1-The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.K.Panigrahi and others Advocates

25 Jul 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No- 19/2018

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Sri. Sangram Sahoo,

S/O-Rupeswar Sahu.

R/O/Po-Mahalingakudar ,PS-Jamankira,

Dist- Sambalpur, Odisha.                                                                 …..Complainant

 

Vrs.

The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank,

Badrama Branch, Po/Ps-Jamankira,

Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha-768107.                                             ….Opp. Party

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant       :-         Sri. P.K.Panigrahi, Advocate & Associates.
2. For the O.P.s                     :-         Dr. Mamata Panda, Advocate & Associates.

 

DATE OF HEARING :28.06.2022, DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 25.07.2022

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is a customer of Punjab National Bank since 2012 and has been financed with agricultural loan from Punjab National Bank, Badrama Branch having his Customer No. DZU001532 and KCC Account No. 2699008800001889, which was to be paid as installment basis.  The limit of the above mentioned KCC Loan is Rs. 50,000/-.  An amount of Rs. 49,000/- was drawn by the Complainant on crop loan by the O.P on 22.06.2016. The Complainant took the aforesaid loan amount and cultivated his land but due to ill fate the crop was damaged due to draught. The Government asked for report from different S.C.Ss. and concerned Revenue Inspectors to pay crop insurance amount to the different cultivators/farmers whose crop were damaged due to draught and Government declared 69% compensation in Jamankira Grampanchayat where the land of the Petitioner is situated. For the said season i.e., Kharif 2016, the area of the Complainant was declared as drought affected and some other loanee of the same area have got reimbursement for crop insurance up to 69% fro the said amount which was settled in their names on dtd. 22.06.2017 as CLAIM AMT for Kharif 2016. But the complainant has not get any benefit of the said crop insurance for the loan account till date. Though the Complainant is a bonafied customer of the said bank and genuinely executed the loan agreement and renewed the same for Kharif season 2016. When the Complainant inquired the matter to the Branch Manager, PNB, Badrama Branch, he did not give satisfactory reply to the Complainant and always told the Complainant it will take sometime and give assurance to the Complainant that he will rembursed the loan amount for his account soon. But it is a matter of regret that inspite of several request the branch Manager of the said bank harass the Complainant several time by saying come tomorrow or day after tomorrow etc. and at last the branch Manager of the said bank told the Complainant to do whatever he deem fit and proper. Finding no other alternatives the Complainant after a lot of harassment by the branch manager, contacted his advocate and issued an Advocate Notice vide Ref. No. 52 of 2017 dtd. 08.11.2017 but the O.P did not give any reply having some malafide intention in his mind. On dtd. 20.03.2018 when the Complainant visited again the said bank, he came to know that the crop insurance premium was not deducted and paid for insurance from his account for the said year due to fault of the O.P. and debar from receiving the benefit of crop insurance. It is the duty of the bank to deduct the crop insurance premium in time for each session immediately after the renewal of loan. The Complainant is poor man and earns his lively hood through cultivation. The bank is totally liable for the entire loss of the Complainant. Hence, the aforesaid conduct of the O.P. amounts to cheating, deficiency and negligence in service.                                                                                                                                                                              As per the Government guideline, the Bank who has financed the aforesaid loan should insured the seasonal cultivation against which loan been sanctioned by deducting the premium amount from the loan account of the Complainant. However the Complainant remained relaxed because he was of the view that his crop (Kharif) has been insured through O.P and he will be compensated through Govt. insurance. The Complainant has also filed the letter of the Sambalpur District Co-operative Central Bank ltd regarding payment of claims for Khariff 2016 under PMFBY for loanee and non loanee farmers.
2. The version of the O.P is that The Complainant is not a consumer of O.P. The crop of the Complainant was not damaged in the Kharif season in the year, 2016 as alleged in the petition. In the year, 2016-17 the Complainant withdraw a sum of Rs. 49,000/- from the O.P vide loan Account No. 2699008800001889 and he has no interest to insure the crop and forced the O.P and its officials to release to entire loan amount on dated 22.06.2016. As he has not entered into any agreement with insurance companies nor he permitted the O.P to insure the crop therefore there was no occasion to O.P to deduct amount for insurance. The Complainant is litigation and influential person of the locality he threatened the O.P and his officials to take action if any amount is deducted towards crop insurance as such the O.P did not deduct any amount for insurance as the Complainant is not willing to insured his crops. The Petitioner has not intimated loss or damage of his crops to either to O.P or any Govt. officers at any point of time. The Petitioner is not entitled to any insurance amount as he has not insured his crops. Out of his own negligency and whimsical nature he is debarred to get benefit of crop insurance if at all his crop is damage.
3. The Complainant is a bonafide customer of the O.P since 2012 and has been financed with agricultural loan having his Customer No. DZU001532 and KCC Account No. 2699008800001889, which was to be paid as installment basis. So he is a consumer of the O.P. As per the version of the O.P, the Complainant is litigation and influential person of the locality he threatened the O.P and his officials to take action if any amount is deducted towards crop insurance as such the O.P did not deduct any amount for insurance as the Complainant is not willing to insured his crops. Regarding the threatened the O.P did not produce any evidence or any F.I.R. In the version of the O.P it is mentioned that the Petitioner has not intimated loss or damage of his crops to either to O.P or any Govt. officers at any point of time.   The advocate notice along with others document proved that the statement is wrong. As per the Government guideline, the Bank who has financed the aforesaid loan should insured the seasonal cultivation against which loan been sanctioned by deducting the premium amount from the loan account of the Complainant.    Hence, the aforesaid, the deficiency and negligence in service of the O.P are found.                                                                                                                                        

It is therefore ordered that the Complaint Petition filed by the Complainant is allowed on contest. The O.P is directed to pay the loan amount Rs. 50,000/- along with up-to-date interest from the date of withdrawal be rembursed to the Complainant, Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency in service and Rs. 20,000/- for financial loss to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this Order failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 25^th day of July, 2022.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.