Orissa

Jajapur

CC/40/2014

Niranjan Biswal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asst.General Manager ,SBI,Jajpur Town Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Bhagabat Prasad Mishra,Rajesh Chandra Das

19 Mar 2015

ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

 

                                                        Present:  1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President,

                                                                        2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                        3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.

                        

                                       Dated the 19thday of March ,2015.

                                   C.C.Case No.40 of 2014

 

Niranjan Biswal,S/O Late Narayan Biswal

Vill.Maidipur,P.O.Similia

P.S.Jajpur Sadar, Dist.Jajpur.

                                                                                             ………… ……....Complainant.                                                                        .

                   (Versus)

1.Asst.General Manager,S.B.I,Jajpur Town Branch

   At.P.O.Dist. Jajpur.

2. General Manager,S.B.I,Local Head office,Bhubaneswar.

3. Deputy General Manager,S.B.I,Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar,

   G.P.O, Khurda.  

                                                                                 …………………………Opp.Parties.                            

For the Complainant:                   Sri B.P.Mishra, R.Ch.Das, Advocates.

For the Opp.Party No.1                Sri P.K.Daspattnaik, Advocate .

For the Opp.Party No.2 and 3       None.

 

                                                             Date of order  : 19. 03. 2015.

MISS SMITA  RAY , LADY MEMBER .

                   Deficiency in banking service is the grievance of the petitioner.

                   The facts, as stated in the complain petition shortly are that the petitioner being an agriculturist of Similia G.P within the district of Jajpur had taken a KCC loan of Rs.30,000/- from S.B.I, Jajpur  Town branch for agriculture purpose. It is stated by the petitioner that the O.Ps. after sanctioning the loan of Rs.30,000/- in favour of the petitioner under K.C.C loan bearing A/CNo.31875125004 on 08.08.2011 though disbursed of Rs.28,000/- but the rest amount of Rs.2,000/- kept as Insurance Premium. Subsequently due to heavy flood resulted for faillin  the farmers of Similia G.P gets 100% Insurance claim since the crops of the farmers of Similia G.P were fully damaged except the petitioner . On inquiry it is ascertained that the O.Ps. have not deposited the Insurance premium of the petitioner for which the petitioner has been debarred for the Insurance claim though his crops has been fully damaged . In such situation the petitioner though served the legal notice but after receipt of the legal notice the O.Ps. remained silent. Thereafter the petitioner obtaining information under RTI Act has filed the present dispute with the prayer to grant compensation of Rs.60,000/- in favour of the petitioner for mental agony and harassment.

                   There are three numbers of O.Ps. in the present dispute. The O.P no.2 and 3 failed to appear and did not choose to file written version . Hence, the O.P no.2 and 3 have been set exparte vide order dt.26.07.14 . The O.P No.1 after appearance has filed the written version denying the allegation of the petitioner. In the written version the O.P.No.1 has taken the stand that though the O.P.No.1 had sanctioned the loan after executing the Agreement but in the instant case the column of Insurance in the agreement remained blank for which the O.P.No.1 could not deposited the Insurance premium against the loan availed by the petitioner. As such the dispute is liable to be dismissed since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.No.1  as well as the present dispute is barred by limitation.

                   Owing to the contradicting views of both the parties after perusal of the record along with the documents filed from both the sides we are inclined to observe as follows:

1. It is undisputed facts that the O.P.No.1 has sanctioned a KCC loan amounting to Rs.30,000/- in favour of the petitioner. As against the above cited loan the O.P.No.1 also has released Rs.28,000/- out of the sanctioned loan  of Rs.30,000/- on 12.08.2011. Further as per term and condition of KCC loan the Insurance is mandatory which has been admitted by O.P.No.1 in the written version vide para-iii page-3. As against such term and condition the O.P. has taken the plea vide para-4 page-3 that the Insurance of the petitioner’s loan A/C could not have been done since the Insurance column in the letter of agreement remained blank. In this context we make it clear that the O.P No.1 is the proper authorized person who has taken the letter of agreement from the petitioner at the time of sanctioning the above cited loan in favour of the petitioner. In case the Insurance colum was blank as per written version of O.P.No.1 , was it not the duty of O.P.No.1 to fill up the same at the time of sanctioning the above cited loan in favour of the petitioner. In the present case since the O.P. No.1 has not complied it the blame undoubtly can be placed at the door of O.Ps.
2. Further in the present case the petitioner has filed an affidavit from one Bhagat Prasad Mishra , where in it is stated that in the year-2011 Kharip crops to the extent of 100%  has been damaged. As against such affidavit the learned advocate of the O.P.No.1 has filed an affidavit himself which is not tenable in the eye of law on the ground the affidavit of Bhagaban Prasad  Mishra is an evidence as per section 13(4) III of C.P.Act 1986.
3. As regards the objection regarding limitation as raised by O.P no.1 the same is also judiciously not acceptable owing to facts and circumstances of the present case as per observation of Hon’ble Supreme court reported in 2001(2) CPR-108-SC so also limitation is a technical point as per observation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 1992(1) CPJ-355-NC and it can be over ruled as per observation of Hon’ble State Commission Goa reported in 2000 (1) -498-Goa.

                   The above analysis from our side clearly go to establish that the O.P.No.1 has committed patent deficiency in service for which the petitioner has

been debarred to avail Insurance claim. As such to meet the ends of justice we allow the dispute.                                                                  

                                                     O R D E R

                   The dispute is allowed against the O.Ps. . The O.P.No.1 is directed to pay the Insurance claim of the petitioner against the damaged Kharif crops for the year 2011 as per term and condition of National Agriculture Insurance Scheme. As regards compensation we allow Rs.5,000/- ( five thousand )as compensation which will be paid by the O.P.No.1 to the petitioner . The above amount of compensation is to be recovered  from the pocket of the then concerned officer who has sanctioned the loan in favour of the petitioner  as per observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1993(III) CPJ-7 vide para-19 (Lucknow Development Authority Vrs.M.K.Gupta) . No cost.                  

         This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 19th day of March,2015. under my hand and seal of the Forum.                                                                                               

                                                                                                 

 (Shri Biraja Prasad Kar )                                                    (Miss Smita Ray )                                                                                            

             President.                                                           Lady Member .                                                                                                                     

                                                               Typed to my dictation & corrected by me                    

 

(Shri Pitabas Mohanty)                                                   (Miss Smita Ray)                                                                                                                                               

      Member.                                                                     Lady Member.