BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.345/16.

Date of instt.: 17.11.2016. 

                                                    Date of Decision: 14.09.2017.

Surender Singh, aged 34 years, S/o Mangat Ram, S/o Surja Ram, Caste Jaat, resident of Village Pai, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                            ……….Complainant.      

                                           Versus

The Branch Manager, Main Branch, Axis Bank on Ambala Road, near R.K.S.D. College, Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Party.

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

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Surender Dhull, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the opposite party.

                     ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                      The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is having an agriculture land 302 kanal, 19 marlas and he took an agriculture loan from the Op under account No.912030006203448.  It is alleged that on 01.08.2016, the Op deducted an amount of Rs.47,648/- on behalf of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna from the loan account of complainant without the permission of complainant.  This way, the Op is deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint.   

2.      Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; 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 again relevant to mention here that at the time of taking loan/credit facilities from the answering Op bank, the complainant declared the land measuring 302 kanal 19 marla and accordingly, the premium in the sum of Rs.47,648/- was rightly 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 Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed evidence on 19.04.2017.  On the other hand, the Op tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed evidence on 10.07.2017.   

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.      From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that according to complainant, he is having an agriculture land 302 kanal, 19 marlas and he took an agriculture loan from the Op under account No.912030006203448.  The grievance of the complainant is that on 01.08.2016, the Op deducted an amount of Rs.47,648/- on behalf of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna from the loan account of complainant without the permission of complainant.  The Op has placed on the file a copy of letter dt. 01.07.2016, Ex.R5 written to the Principal Secretary of all the States/UTs by Govt. of India, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare regarding the operational guidelines for implementation of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY).  It is clear from letter Ex.R5 that the loanee farmers to be covered on compulsory basis who have got sanctioned standard loan for notified crops in notified area irrespective of date of sanction/disbursement.  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 of the complainant.  The Op was bound to implement the notification issued by the government.  Unless and until the said notification is not 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, 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.  In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Op has not committed any act of unfair trade practice and we found no deficiency on the part of Op.

6.      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.14.09.2017.    (Harisha Mehta),                   (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                          Presiding Member.