Date of filing:-29/12/2017.
Date of Order:-15/10/2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 71 of 2017
Chitrasen Khamari, S/o. Babaji Khamari, aged about 53(fifty three) years, R/o/Vill-Nagaon, P.o. Garvana, P.s Sohela, Dist-Bargarh(Odisha). ..... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Panimora Branch At/Po:- Panimora, Ps. Sohela Dist-Bargarh-768033. ..... ..... ..... .....Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri D.Acharya, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party:- Sri M.K.Agrawal, Advocate and Associates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.15/10/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief Fact of the case ;-
The case of the Complainant in brief is that he being a farmer of the aforesaid village has incurred a Crop Loan from the Opposite Party bank for an amount of Rs.1,04,000/-(Rupees one lakh four thousand)only vide his loan Account No.2243331044 and had cultivated in his land over an area of Ac.4.50 dc, but due to the ill-luck his crop along with the crops of his co-villagers of the Garvana Panchayat was badly damaged by the bad weather condition and looking to the prevailing condition of crop damage, the Government had declared the area as drought effected and declared compensation @ 82.84 %(eighty two point eighty four percent) per Acre of the cultivated land for the year 2016, for which the Complainant is entitled. And his case is that as he has incurred a Loan from the Opposite Party Bank so it was his responsibility to remit the premium amount of Rs.1,845/-(Rupees one thousand eight hundred forty five)only in lieu of his cultivated land of Ac.4.50.dc @ Rs. 410/-(Rupees four hundred ten)only per acre to the Insurance Company to insure his said crop as he being the Nodal Bank and as per the mandatory provision of the Government of India it is the responsibility of the Nodal bank to remit the premium amount to the Insurance Company to insure the Crop of the Complainant as he is a Loanee farmer but on inquiry he came to know that the Opposite Party has not remitted the insurance premium amount to the Insurance Company as such he was debarred from getting the beneficial amount declared by the Government for the damage of his crop for an amount of Rs.26,846/-(Rupees twenty two thousand eight hundred forty six)only per acre and in total for an amount of Rs.1,00,080/-(Rupees one lakh eighty)only for an area of Ac4.50 dc against his crop damage which as per him amounts to deficiencies in rendering service and coupled with unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. For which the Complainant had to suffer a lot both financially and mentally.
Thus the Complainant approached the Opposite Party and asked him to make good of his such loss, but as he did not respond to his request, preferred to file the case before the Forum praying for a direction to the Opposite Party to pay him his legitimate amount of Rs.1,00,080/-(Rupees one lakh eighty)only and Rs.60,000/-(Rupees sixty thousand)only towards his mental agony and litigation expenses. And in support of his case has relied on these documents.
Loan account stands in the name of the Complainant vide No.2243331044.
Xerox Copy of the Account statement Binod Kumar Sahu of village Nagaon vide Account No.2243331293 of Central Bank of India, Panimora Branch which reveals the deduction of premium amount and receipt of compensation towards crop damage in the year 2016-17.
Relevant part of operational Guidelines of PMFBY.
On perusal of the complaint, the document filed by him and on hearing the Advocate representing him, the case was admitted and Notice was served on the Opposite Party and in response to the same the Opposite Party appeared before the Forum through his counsel and filed his version which are all an evasive one, simply he has stated in his version that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no cause of action and since he is a loanee of his bank is entitled for any service as has not paid any consideration amount for rendering such service and that all the averments made by the Complainant are false as such are not admitted, in furtherance to his version has also denied the contention of the guidelines filed by the Complainant that the Opposite Party is supposed to remit the insurance premium amount to the Insurance Company as has neither promised nor advertised to insure the crop of the Complainant at any point of time, and at the same time has made an averment that since the Government has implemented a National Agricultural Insurance Scheme to provide insurance coverage and financial support to the farmers in the event of failure of any of the notified crop as a result of natural calamities and has directed the financial institution to insure to the crop of the Loanee and the banks are doing the same with his consent without any fees for that. And as such as the Opposite Party is doing such favor without any consideration as such the Complainant is not a consumer and consequently is not entitled to any service and hence has claimed to dismiss the case against him.
On perusal of the Complaint, the version and the relevant documents and on hearing the submission of the respective lawyer concerned we are of the view to adjudicate the case in the following points for determination of the same,
Whether the Complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Party and whether deficiencies of service has been committed by the Opposite Party.
Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought for by him.
While considering the question as to whether the Complainant is a consumer, having gone through the Complaint, the version and the documents filed by the parties and on hearing the respective counsels for the parties with utmost care, it reveals from the materials available in the record that it is an admitted fact of the case that the Complainant is a loanee of the Opposite Party Branch and his aforesaid account is still in operation therein and for every acts of his concern is taking the service charges in addition to the interest over the loan amount fetched by, as such the contention of the Opposite Party that the Complainant is not a consumer is not tenable in the eye of law as such it is answered in favor of the Complainant.
Secondly while scrutinizing the question as to whether the Opposite Party have committed deficiencies in rendering service, it came to our Notice that the Government of India under the PMFBY have declared the scheme for the concerned area as drought effected area and hence declared a beneficially scheme there under @ 82.84 % per acre of the cultivated land and also it is apparent from the operational Guidelines under the point No.2(two) headed by the term compulsory component that in case of Loanee farmer his crop would be covered compulsorily and it is also the standing instruction of the Government in such scheme even if there is no balance in the account of such farmer, it is the duty and responsibility of the Nodal Bank to sanction further Loan amount required for the payment of the premium amount and to remit the same to the concerned insurance Company to enable the farmer to take the advantage of such scheme but in this case in hand though it has been admitted by the Opposite Party that such scheme is in operation and in furtherance the Complainant has inquired about the same from the Opposite Party has not taken care of to deposit the premium amount which is nothing but the negligence on his part which amounts to deficiencies of service for which he is ultimately liable to compensate to the Complainant and as such the citation of the Decision of the Honorable Supreme Court reported in 2016 (1) CPR-829 filed by the learned Advocate for the Opposite Party is not applicable in this case as it is in a different footing and more so since there is no ambiguity in the case in hand and the aim and ambit of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 is a benevolent provision of Law. Keeping all these points of law and facts in to our view our view is expressed in favor of the Complainant.
Thirdly while dealing with the Issues No.3(three) as to whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as has been sought for, As we have dealt with the case in details in our foregoing paragraphs and have opined in favor of the Complainant, now it is obvious upon us to express our view in favor of the Complainant and the Opposite Party is liable to compensate the loss sustained by the Complainant as here under, as such our order follows.
O R D E R
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,080/-(Rupees one lakh eighty)only with an interest @ 7% (seven percent) per annum from the date of filing of the case till the date of Order to the Complainant, besides that is also directed to compensate with Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards the mental and financial agony under gone by him and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only towards litigation expenses within thirty days from the date of receipt of the Order in default of which the entire amount would carry an interest @ 9%(nine percent) per annum till the actual realization of the same.
Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Forum and in the result the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party and the same is disposed off to-day on Dt. 15/10/2018. yped to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree,
( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (W)
