Haryana

Karnal

CC/355/2016

Atam Prakash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

18 Dec 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.355 of 2016

                                                         Date of instt. 25.11.2016

                                                         Date of decision:18.12.2017

 

Atam Parkash son of Shri Ram Sarup resident of village Guniana Sub Tehsil Nising District Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainan

                                        Versus

 

Axis Bank Bastali Sub Tehsil Nising through Manager District Karnal.

                                         

                                                                     …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President. 

      Ms. Veena Rani ………..Member.

      Sh. Anil Sharma…......Member

             

 

 Present  Complainant in person.

               Shri Sanjay Singh Advocate for opposite party.

                               

                (Jagmal Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that he is an agriculturist. He is owner of about 55 Kanal 18 Marlas of land. He availed cash credit limit from the OP against the said land.  He cleared the amount of limit and demanded the clearance amount from the OP bank but OP demanded Rs.16184/- under the “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” from him whereas he is only the owner of 7 acres of land and he is not covered under that scheme.  He made an application in that regard to the C.M.Window but to no effect. In this way, the OP is deficient in service. Hence this complaint is filed.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to concealment of true and material facts; complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. On merits, it has been submitted that complainant had availed Kisan Credit Facility of Rs.9,00,000/- by showing 7.47 acre as owned land and 25 acre as leased land, situated at village Guniana, tehsil Nissing, District Karnal in the application form as well as in his affidavit. The complainant was made aware about the terms and conditions relating to said limit and after duly understanding the terms, conditions and contents thereof the complainant put his signatures on the said application form including the affidavit. It has further been submitted  that crops of the complainant was insured under “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana” as under the said scheme it is compulsory for loanee farmers availing crop loan or having sanctioned credit limit to insure their crops and as such under the scheme the crops of the complainant over which the credit facility was availed by him, was insured and a sum of Rs.16,184/- as amount of premium has been rightly debited in the account of complainant as per terms and conditions of the said scheme and the same has been clearly mentioned in the statement of account and there is nothing illegal in the said act and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA, affidavit of Sunder Lal Ex.CB, affidavit of Phool Singh Ex.CC and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on 21.7.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Parmod Kumar Regional Operational Manager Ex.OPW1/Aand documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 31.10.2017.

5.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             Complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant is agriculturist by profession and owner in possession of about 7 acres of land. He further argued that he has availed cash credit limit of Rs.9,00,000/- against the said land. He further argued that the OP has deducted/debited an amount of Rs.16184/- from his account because there was no agreement between the parties regarding launching of any insurance policy or automatic deduction from the account.  On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP argued that the Government of India had introduced Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. Under the said scheme it was compulsory for loanee farmers availing crop loan or having sanctioned credit limit to insure their crops. Under the abovesaid scheme the states were asked to implement the same during Kharif 2016 and Rabi 2016-2017 in their respective states and thus the state of Haryana vide notification dated 17.6.2016 issued a notification in this regard and all the farmers/loanee farmers were compulsory were to be covered. It is further argued that a sum of Rs.16184/- as amount of premium has been rightly deducted from the account of complainant. He further argued that the complainant had availed the Kisan Credit Facility of Rs.9.00 lakhs by showing 7.47 acres as owned land and 25 acres as leased land and accordingly the above amount of Rs.16,184/- has been rightly deducted on account of insurance regarding the entire land.

7.             From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that the complainant has availed the cash credit limit upto 9,00,000/- from the OP. The contention of the complainant that the said limit of Rs.9,00,000/- has been availed against 7.47 acres of land is totally wrong. The said limit has been sanctioned by the OP against 32.47 acres of land and this fact is very much clear from the document Ex.OP/1, application form for credit facility. In this form, the complainant mentioned that he owned 7.47 acres of land and 25 acres of land has been taken on lease and in this way, the total land holding of the complainant is 32.47 acres. This facts are mentioned in column B, C, E and I i.e. the particulars of land holding. The document Ex.OP/1 bears the signature of complainant on all the pages. Hence on perusal of document Ex.OP/1 it is clear that complainant has hypothecated the crop grown or to be grown over 32.47 acres of land situated at village Guniana Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal. Therefore, the contention of complainant that he availed the cash credit limit of Rs.9,00,000/- against 7.47 acres of land is wrong and against the records. OP has placed a notification no.3009/Agri.II(I)-2016/10854 dated 17.6.2016 issued by the Government of Haryana, the copy of which is Ex.OP/2. In pursuance of this notification, the OP has debited the premium amount in question from the cash credit limit account of the complainant. Unless and until the said notification is set-aside by any competent authority, the OP is bound to implement the same. The contention of the complainant that Phool Singh and Sunder Lal has only owned 10 acres of land as both these persons gave affidavit Ex.CB and Ex.CC but the complainant himself gave an affidavit at the time of getting sanctioned the loan that he had taken land 25 acres situated in village Guinana on lease from Phool Singh son of Telu Ram and Sunder Lal son of Ram Sarup for tenure of 5 years. So the complainant cannot go beyond his affidavit which was given for getting sanctioned the credit limit.  In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OP has implemented the notification issued by the Government of Haryana, so, the OP has not committed any act of unfair trade practice and we found no deficiency on the part of the OP.

8.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:18.12.2017

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                   (Veena Rani)        (Anil Sharma)             

                        Member              Member