BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.346/16.

Date of instt.: 21.11.2016. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 08.08.2017.

Rajpal age 45years son of Sh. Sapattar Singh, r/o Village Barot, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.     

                                        Versus

Axis Bank Limited, Kaithal through its Branch Manager, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Virender Sheokand, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the Op.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is agriculturist by profession and owner in possession of about 10 acres of land.  It is alleged that he has availed cash credit limit upto Rs.9,90,000/- against the said land.  It is further alleged that the above-said cash credit limit is still in operation vide account No.911030054524891 of the complainant.  It is further alleged the Op has deducted/debited an amount of Rs.31,646.36 paise on 01.08.2016 from the account of complainant.  It is further alleged that there was no agreement between the parties regarding launching of any insurance policy or automatic deduction from the account of complainant.  This way, the Op is deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite partys appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op as the amount in question was rightly debited in the account of complainant being insurance premium as per directions of Haryana Govt.  It is relevant to mention here that Govt. of India had introduced PARDHAN MANTRI FASAL BIMA YOJNA and asked the states to implement the same during kharif 2016 & Rabi 2016-17 in their respective states and thus, State of Haryana vide notification dt. 17.06.2016 issued a notification in this regard and all the farmers/loanee farmers were compulsory to be covered.  It is further stated that at the time of taking loan/credit facilities from the answering Op bank, the complainant declared the land measuring 100.8 acre under his cultivation and accordingly, the amount of credit facilities was worked out and accordingly, the premium @ Rs.775/- per Hectare i.e. Rs.31,646.36 paise was charged.  It is further stated that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as FASAL BIMA YOJNA scheme was introduced by Govt. of India & is being implemented by Govt. of Haryana & Op bank had debited the premium amounts as per Govt. instructions, hence, Govt. of India & State of Haryana are necessary parties for just decision of the case.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.       

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Mark-CA to Mark-CG and closed evidence on 16.02.2017.  On the other hand, the Op tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed evidence on 18.04.2017.   

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

5      Ld. counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint.  He argued that the complainant is agriculturist by profession and owner in possession of about 10 acres of land.  He further argued that the complainant has availed cash credit limit upto Rs.9,90,000/- against the said 10 acres of land.  He further argued that the above-said cash credit limit is still in operation vide account No.911030054524891 of the complainant.  He further argued that the Op has deducted/debited an amount of Rs.31,646.36 paise on 01.08.2016 from the account of complainant because there was no agreement between the parties regarding launching of any insurance policy or automatic deduction from the account of complainant.  On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Op argued that the Govt. of India had introduced PARDHAN MANTRI FASAL BIMA YOJNA and asked the states to implement the same during kharif 2016 & Rabi 2016-17 in their respective states and thus, State of Haryana vide notification dt. 17.06.2016 issued a notification in this regard and all the farmers/loanee farmers were compulsory to be covered.  He further argued that at the time of taking loan/credit facilities from the Op bank, the complainant declared the land measuring 100.8 acre under his cultivation and accordingly, the amount of credit facilities was worked out and accordingly, the premium @ Rs.775/- per Hectare i.e. Rs.31,646.36 paise was charged.  He further argued that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as FASAL BIMA YOJNA scheme was introduced by Govt. of India & is being implemented by Govt. of Haryana & Op bank had debited the premium amounts as per Govt. instructions, hence, Govt. of India & State of Haryana are necessary parties for just decision of the case.  

6.     From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that the complainant has availed the cash credit limit upto Rs.9,90,000/- from the Op.  The contention of the complainant that the said limit of Rs.9,90,000/- has been availed against 10 acre of land is totally wrong.  The said limit of Rs.9,90,000/- has been sanctioned by the Op against 100.8 acre of land and this fact is very much clear from the document, Ex.R1, application form for credit facility.  In this form, the complainant mentioned that he owned 10.8 acre of land and 90 acre of land has been taken on lease and in this way, the total land holding of the complainant is 100.8 acre.  These facts are mentioned in column B, C, E and I i.e. the particulars of the land holding.  This document Ex.R1 bears the signatures of complainant on all the pages.  Similarly, from the sanction letter Ex.R2, it is clear that the hypothecation of the crop grown or to be grown over 100.86 acres of land situated at Village Barout, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal had been mentioned and this document is also signed by the complainant.  The complainant has hypothecated the crop grown or to be grown over 100.80 acres is further clear from the documents   Ex.R3 and R4.  Therefore, the contention of complainant that he availed the cash credit limit of Rs.9,90,000/- against 10 acres of land is wrong and against the records and the said cash credit limit has been availed by the complainant against 100.8 acres.  At the time of arguments, the Op has placed a copy of notification No.3009/Agri.II(1)-2016/10854 dated 17.06.2016 issued by the Govt. of Haryana.  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.  Moreover, the above-said scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna has been introduced by Govt. of India & to implement the same, the Govt. of Haryana has issued a notification, therefore, the Govt. of India & Govt. of Haryana were the necessary parties but the same have not been impleaded as parties by the complainant inspite of objection raised by the Op in its reply.  Similarly, the Reliance General Insurance Co. who had done the insurance as per Govt. Instructions was also necessary party and the same has also not been impleaded as party by the complainant.  In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Op has implemented the notification issued  by the Govt. of Haryana, so, the Op has not committed any act of unfair trade practice and we found no deficiency on the part of Op.

7.     Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.08.08.2017.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.