Orissa

Jajapur

CC/70/2014

Ranjan Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

B.M. State Bank of India Balichandrapur Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Laxmidhar Nayak

13 Oct 2017

ORDER

                       IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                                     Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                                         2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                                          3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                       

                                              Dated the 13^th  day of October,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.70 of 2014

Ranjan Das S/O Adhikari Gangadhar Das 

Vill .Kulanarsinghpur, P.O. Khadianga   

Via. Kantigadia , Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

 

1.B.M ,S.B.I, Balichandrapur Branch ,At/P.O. Balichandrapur , Dist. Jajpur.

2.Nodal Branch ,S.B.I, Jajpur Town , At/P.O/Dist.jajpur

3.National Agricultural insurance Co-operation,D.O,Bhubaneswar,

Plot No.7,Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar, Dist.Khurda

                                                                                                                             ……………..Opp.Parties.    

                                                                                                                                       

For the Complainant:                                            Sri L.D.Nayak, Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties : No.1 and 2                           Sri P.K. Daspattnaik, Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties ;No.3                                     Sri K.Ch.Kar,Advocate.   

                                                                                                     Date of order:  13.10.2017.

MISS SMITA RAY, LADY MEMBER.

Deficiency in banking / insurance service is the grievance of the complainant.

            The fact as stated in the complaint petition shortly are that the petitioner being an agriculturist  of vill. kulanarsinghpur in the dist of jajpur had a taken a KCC loan of Rs. 49,000/- from O.P.no.1 namely as State Bank of India ,Balichandrapur Branch for agriculture purpose . It is stated by the petitioner that the O.P  has sanctioned the  loan of Rs.49,000/- in favour of petitioner  under KCC loan bearing no.30834285042 in the year of 2011 .  The petitioner also had made a crop  Insurance  of the said loan /crop by depositing Rs.855/ on 2.10.11 as Insurance premium before the O.P. Subsequently due to crop loss owing to natural calamities and due to high flood the entire

crops were fully damaged. So the  Govt.  has declared the loan availed by the farmers from any bank /corporate or financially institution shall be waive out.

            That it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has availed a further KCC  loan  from the O.P.no.1 on dt.7.7.14 a sum of  Rs.97,000/- but the O.P.no.1 only disbursed  a sum of Rs.57,000/- and repaid that the rest  Rs. 40,000/-  credited to the previous loan outstanding against the loan account  of 2011. Thereafter the petitioner told  to O.P.No.1  when the  Govt. already waive out the entire crop loan of 2011 due to high flood of the concerned G.p under what circumstances the O.P.no.1 debited  Rs. 40,000/ from the  present loan amount  . Thereafter on dt.05.08.13 the petitioner served a legal notice to the O.Ps  but the O.Ps  neither replied nor took  any steps for disbursement of the rest  loan amount of  Rs.40,000/-

            Accordingly   finding no other alternative the petitioner knocked the door of this fora to direct the O.Ps  to disburse the balance loan amount of Rs.40,000/- which has been sanctioned in the year 2014 as well as  waived out the entire loan amount availed by the petitioner  in the year of 2011 and pay compensation of  Rs.15,000/-  for deficiency in service and litigation expenses.

            There are three numbers  of O.Ps  in the present dispute . The O.Ps  have appeared through their learned advocate  and subsequently filed their written version  . The O.P.no.1  in the written version has taken  the following stands:-

That  the case is not maintainable in the eye of law.

That there are no cause of action to file this proceeding against these O.Ps.

That the proceeding is barred by law of limitation as prescribed under  C.P. Act.

That the petitioner being  an  agricultural by his profession in the year 2009 has availed  short  term agricultural loan to carry on his agricultural  operation.  As per his requirements  the O.P bank has sanctioned a  loan of  Rs.40,000/- .In the instant case , though the short term loan has been sanctioned  of Rs.40,000/ . That on the instruction of the petitioner the O.P bank insured the hypothecated crop of the petitioner by deducting Rs.855/ from the petitioner loan amount  and deposited on 2.10.11 vide DD no.764202 in the  Nodal Branch to transmit the same to the concerned  Insurance Company. In the mean time  O.P.no.1 has  not yet  received the insurance  amount from  the concerned  Insurance Company.  As per arrangement receipt of claim amount of  Govt notification it is an automatic process.  As soon as,  the Insurance Company will pay the amount,  the amount will be credited to the loan account  of the petitioner  automatically.  In the above circumstance the O.P.no.1 is in  no way deficient to provide any such services to the petitioner . In  the above circumstances,  the  C.C. case filed by the petitioner  against the O.Ps is not at all maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

 The O.P.no.2 filed an affidavit wherein it is  as stated that it is admitted fact that the complainant  borrower has incurred  a KCC loan from SBI  Balichandrapur Branch and the said loan amount was duly insured and premium amount was deducted and deposited  with the  said branch. That the letter dt.10.8.12 with reference  NIS khariff   2011 season  claim received  from the O.P  Insurance company to the S.B.I jajpur Town Branch.  In that letter it has been clearly mentioned that an amount of Rs.2,25,17,884.28p/ has been send to the branch vide Ch.no.471181 dt.10.08.12  as Insurance claim amount to be payble in the claim statement on the basis of formula mentioned in the said letter.

            That after receipt of the said letter on dt.28.8.12 the amount was deposited in its own account  and accordingly as a Nodal Branch it communicated the matter to other branches on dt 15.09.12. the amount was released and credited to the different branches . Hence the O.P.no.2 S.B.I Jajpur Town Branch /Nodal Branch is in no way responsible and liable for any  such deficiency occurred in providing services to the petitioner. This O. P  is only via- media  under Insurance contract hence the duty  is like a post office.

            The O.P.no.3 had taken the stand in the written version  that they have already settled   the Insurance claim  an amount of Rs.2,25,17,884.28  in total towards claims under NAIS  kharif 2011 season in favour of the Nodal Bank i.e  S.B.I, Jajpur  Town Branch on dt.10.08.12.  Out of which Rs.27,37,800.00/ relates to  patunia G.P  benefiting 97 farmers having sum insured of  Rs.27,37,800/- on the basis of declaration received  from the above said  Nodal office i.e, O.P.no.2. The Insurance claim has been paid for the above said G.P was 100% under NAIS kharif 2011 season for paddy crop . But the  petitioner was covered or not within the above said   97 benefited farmers for the G.P  can only  be confirmed by the O.Pno.1  and 2 .Hence there is no negligence or deficiency on the part of O.P.no.3 for settlement of claims.  It is therefore humbly prayed that the complaint petition  against the O.P may kindly be dismissed and for which the O.p shall ever pray.

            Owing to the above contradicting views  on the date of hearing we heard the arguments from both the parties .  After perusal of the record along with documents filed from both the sides in details the following issues are framed.

Issue No.1

            Whether the complaint is a consumer who is entitled to maintain the dispute in this Fora ?

Issue No.2

            Whether this Fora gets jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute on the point of limitation ?

Issue No.3

            Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P, so far as the  grievance of the complainant is concerned ?

Issue No.4

            Whether  the petitioner  is entitled to any relief ?   

At the initial stage we make it clear that we are going to decide the dispute on the  facts  and circumstances of the present dispute as per observation of the Hon’ble Supreme court reported in

 2001(2)CPR-108-S.C.

Answer to issue No.1

            It is un disputed fact that the complainant has availed a KCC loan from the O.P.no.1 .  As against such loan the complainant is paying interest which is covered in the expression of service and the interest so paid by  the complainant in repayment of loan is consideration .As such the complainant is a consumer as per observation of Hon’ble Supreme court reported in 1995(2)SCC-150-S.C(Consumer unit and Trust society Vrs. Chairman M.D Bank of Baroda)  (2000)CPJ-115- Vimal ch. Grover Vrs. Bank of India)    

Answer to issue No.2

The stand taken by the O.P.no.1  in the written  version  that the present dispute is barred by limitation as  provided under C.P. Act. In this point It is our considered views that the cause of action arises in 2014 when the O.P.no.1 deducted  Rs.40,000/- from the loan amount  which was availed by the petitioner in the year of 2014  and credited the said amount in the KCC loan account of 2011. Thereafter the petitioner has filed the present dispute in  this Fora on 17.09.14  .As such the dispute is within the period of limitation as per section 24(A) of C.P.Act 1986. We also placed  reliance  in the observation of U.P State commission,2004(2)CLD-568,wherein it is held that :

“In case of any genuine claim the limitation is a technical point .”

Answer to issue no.3 and 4

            These  are the  vital issues  wherein we  are required to verify whether there is any  deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  and if so whether  the complainant is entitled for any relief as prayed in his complaint petition ?

            It is undisputed fact that the O.P.no.1 has sanctioned a KCC loan in favor of  petitioner in the year of 2011.   As  against the above cited loan the O.P.no.1 has taken insurance premium from the petitioner to insure the said loan / crops . Further as per term and condition of the KCC loan  the insurance is mandatory which must be done by financial institution .  In the written version  the O.P.no.1 has taken the pleas that  soon after the insurance company paid the insured amount ,the amount will be credited  to the loan account automatically.  On the other hand the O.P.no. 2 and 3 have taken the stand that the insured amount already credited to O.P.no.1 but in the circumstances we do not under stand under what circumstances the O.P.no.1 debited Rs.40,000/- from the loan availed by the petitioner in the year of 2014 subsequently credited  to the previous loan of the petitioner in the year of 2011. Besides this the petitioner also served a legal notice on dt .05.8.13 to O.P.no.1 but the O.P.no.1 slept over the matter. Hence the petitioner  was constrained to file this present dispute  . This attitude of the O.P.no.1  not only speaks  gross deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice as per observation of the Hon’ble National commission reported in 2013(1) CPR-456- N.C (M/S Rita Vrs. Sikander Singh )

wherein it is held that

            “ Non reply of lawyer notice may draw adverse inference ‘.

The above analysis from our side, it  clearly goes to establish that in view of the observation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 1999(1)CPR-23-N.C(United India Insurance Co. Vrs. Satrughna Sharma and Others) the O.P has committed patent deficiency of service for which the petitioner has been  debarred to avail insurance claim . As such to meet the ends of justice we allow the dispute.

Hence this order

The dispute is allowed against O.P.no.1 and dismissed against O.P.no. 2 and 3 on contest.  The O.P No.1 is directed to pay the Insurance claim of the petitioner against the kharif crops for the year of 2011. Immediately received from the NAIS /  Govt. of  India along with compensation of Rs.5,000/-  to the petitioner  within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the awarded amount will carry 9% interest from the date of filing of the present dispute till its realization .The above amount shall be recovered by the authority of the O.P from the pocket of the concerned officer who has sanctioned the loan and debited the insurance premium amount as per observation of Hon’ble Supreme court 1993(3)CPJ-7-vide para-19- (Lucknow Development Authority Vrs .M.K.Gupta . The O.P.no.1 also directed to disburse the balance loan amount of Rs.40,000/- which has been sanctioned in the year 2014 and the interest of the loan amount of Rs.40,000/- will be calculated from  the date of disbursement  to the petitioner .  No cost.

            This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 13 th day of October ,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.