West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/101/2013

Biswajit Mandal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assistant Manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

29 Oct 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.101/2013                                                         Date of disposal: 29/10/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

       For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr.A.K.Dutta, Advocate.

       For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr.B.K.Raj & Mr.M.K.Chowdhury, Advocate.                                   

          

          Biswajit & Bidyut Mandal, S/o Badal Mandal of Vill. Ghoshkrira, P.O. Keshadal, P.S.

          Chandrakona, Dist- Paschim Medinipur…………..Complainants.

                                                           Vs.

1. Assistant Manager, State Bank of India, Ghatal Branch, P.O. & P.S. Ghatal, Dist- Paschim Medinipur, Pin- 721212
2. Regional Manager, Agricultural Insurance Co. Ltd., At Om Tower, 5^th Floor, 32 Chowringhee Road,(Near Park Street Metro Station), Kolkata- 700071. …………..Ops.

 

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Lady Member

The facts of the Complainant case in a nutshell is that the Complainants are small cultivators owner 3 acre of land.

They took loan of 48,000/- (forty eight thousand) from the Op. No.1-SBI.

The Complainants customers of S.B.I. in their A/c received the money from potato Insurance in the year 2011-12 of 1,800/-(one thousand eight hundred) as Insurance premium and Op. Bank S.B.I. issued ( Kishan Credit Card) in favour of the  Complainants.

After receiving the loan the Complainants started cultivation of potato in their own land in the year 2012. But cultivation of potato has been highly damaged due to various infection in the area. All cultivators of the area including the Complainant informed the concern Panchyat, B.D.O., Agricultural Office including the Op. No.1-Bank about the damage of potato.

           After investigation by the investigating agent of Panchyat B.D.O. Agricultural Deptt. and Govt. of W.B., a report about 80% damage of potato has been submitted before the Op. No.2. Agricultural Insurance Co. for settlement of insurance benefit for adjusting the loan account.

    Contd……..P/2

  

 

- ( 2 ) - 

            Though, Accordingly, the Op. Bank received the Insurance benefit from the Op.No.2 Insurance Company but still now Op.No.1 did not adjust the Insurance benefit in the loan account of the Complainants. Op.No.1 has no right to withhold the insurance benefit of the Complainants. The Complainants state that they have every right to the Insurance benefit as per law.

            Thus, the Complainants are forced to file the complaint before the Hon’ble Forum to settle the dispute as per Consumer Protection Act.

            The Op.No1 and Op.No.2 contested the case by filing written objection and argument.

            Ld. Lawyer for the Op.No.1 argued that no money towards compensation and the Insurance benefit has been received by the Op.No.1 from the Op.No.2 although insurance premium of 2,211.00/- was paid to the Op.No.2 on 31/01/2012 towards the insurance premium of the  Complainant.

            Ld. Lawyer in this matter has pointed out that reminder through the letter dated 16/05/2014 regarding the payment of compensation/Insurance benefit to the Complainants was sent, but still today Op. No.2 kept themselves silent without any reply to the Op.No.1 Op. also states that Op.No.1 has no contractual relation towards the payment of any compensation and /or payment of insurance benefit to the farmer excepting the payment of insurance premium by delaying the Farmers Loan Account.  In that event Op No.1 has paid the same diligently to the Op. No.2.

            Here Op. No.1 also denied the allegation made in para 5 and 6 of the complainant and Op No.1 also denied that they have received the insurance benefit of the complainants from Op. No.2, So, Op. No.1 has no liability of payment of insurance benefit to any insured.  Op. has only liability for payment of premium by delaying the loan account of the lonees.  Op no.1 has paid the premium in terms of the scheme of the Central Government.  So the Op No.2 should be directed to pay the insurance benefit to the complainants through and Op No.1.

            Op.No.2 also contested the case by filing written objection.

            Ld. Lawyer for the Op.No.2 argued that they are the Central public institution dealing with the public Exchequer and are to comply with the scheme formulated by the Govt. of India.

            In that formulae claim has been setteled and there was no deficiency of service on the part of Op. Co.

            The Complainants replied that they have paid the premium of 1,800/- with a view to insure potato crop. The Complainants alleged that no relief/ claim have been secured. But the Ld. Lawyer for the Op. claims that Op. as per scheme and guidelines of MNAIS has already disbursed the payable sum for the crop as mentioned in the petition of Complainant. So, there is no deficiency of service. Therefore the complaint case should be dismissed.

Contd……..P/3

  

 

- ( 3 ) - 

Upon the case of the both parties the following issues are framed.

1. Whether the case is maintainable in its present form ?
2. Whether the Ops. are in deficiency in service within the meaning of sec.2(1)(g) read with sec.2(1) of the Consumer Protection Act ?
3. Whether the Complainants are entitled to get Insurance benefit ?

 

Decisions with reasons.

 

All the issues are taken up for decision.

We have carefully considered the case of complainants and the Op-No.1-SBI, specially of Op. No.2 Insurance Co.

Op. No.1 claims that no payment has been received from Op. No.2 demands that payment in bulk was duly made.

  Now we are to decide who is liable to satisfy the claim of the complainant in terms of his prayer made in the petition of the complainant. 

  Upon careful scrutiny of the entire evidence so far available on record it appears that there is no cogent and reliable evidence to show that the Op. No.-2 has paid insurance benefit in favour of the complainant through the Op-State Bank of India.

  Thus for want of evidence we cannot accept the plea of Op. No.2-Insurance Company.  As a result, the complainants are entitled to get relief as prayed for.

  All the points are disposed of accordingly.

  The complainant should get insurance benefit for adjustment of the loan through the Op-State Bank.

  Hence, ordered that the case be and the same is allowed on contest without cost.

  The complainants do get Insurance benefit payable by the Op No.2  through Op No.1 within sixty days from the date of this order.

  Op. No.1 is hereby directed to adjust the loan amount and pay surplus, if any in favour of the complainant accordingly.   

     

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         Member                                             Member                                                President

                                                                                                                             District Forum

                                                                                                                        Paschim Medinipur.