Orissa

Jajapur

CC/56/2014

Purna Chandra Mohanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager SBI - Opp.Party(s)

Ld.Adv

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.56 of 2014

Purna ch. Mohanty  S/O Narendra Mohanty

At/P.O. Mulabasanta , Via. Kuanpal

P.S.Mahanga  Dist.-Cuttack.                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                   .

                   (Versus)

1.Branch Manager, state Bank of India, Balichandrapur branch , Dist. Jajpur.

2.Chief General  Manager , State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar,Dist.Khurda.

3. General  Insurance Corporation of India, State level Co-operative insurance cell  

Plot no.7,Satyanagar,Bhubaneswar-7,Dist.Khurda.

                                                                                                                            ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

For the Complainant:                          Sri P.K.Samal, Sri C.R. Ojha, Sri R.Ch.Nayak, Advocates.

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

For the Opp.parties; No.3                   Sri K.C.Kar,Advocate.

For the Opp.parties No.2                     None.

                                                                                                     Date of order:   13.10.2017.

MISS SMITA RAY ,LADY  MEMBER  .

            Deficiency in banking / Insurance service is the grievance of the petitioner .

            The fact as stated in the complaint  petition in short is that the petitioner being an agriculturist of Vill. Mulabasanta in the Dist. of Cuttack had taken a KCC loan for agriculture purpose (khariff) amounting to  Rs.31,000/ from the O.P.no.1 namely  State  Bank of India , Balichandrapur vide loan A/c No.31953311604 in the year of 2011.   The petitioner also deposited  Rs.500/- for insurance premium along with other documents to  insure  the above crops / loan through NAIS of  Govt. of  India through  O.P.no.1 . Subsequently due to crop loss owing to natural calamities / high flood in the year of 2011 ,the whole crops were damaged .  Thereafter the petitioner requested the O.P.No.1  to make payment of the Insured amount received from the bank /   Insurance  company  towards damage of the khariff  crops 2011. But the O.p.No.1 slept over the matter. Hence the O.p.no.1 to 3 i.e State Bank of India and  Insurance company  both have jointly and severally liable for the above deficiency of service since  the petitioner has been debarred from getting the Insurance claim. Accordingly the petitioner  has filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the O.Ps  to pay   Rs.1,01,000/ towards damages and compensation.

            There are 3 numbers  of O.Ps in the present dispute . The O.P.no.1 and 3 appeared  through their learned advocate  but the O.P.no. 3 did not choose to contest the dispute by filing  the written version / objection  in time , even after  several opportunity  given by this fora.  Hence the O.P.no. 2 and 3 have been  set exparte vide order dt.2.03.15. The O.P.no.1 filed the written version  taking following pleas.

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

That there is no cause of action in favour of the petitioner to file this proceeding as against these O.Ps.

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

That  the petitioner is an agriculturist by his profession in the year of 2011 who  has availed short term  agricultural loan to carry on his agricultural operation .  As per his requirement the O.P  bank has sanctioned  of  Rs.30,000/-  in favour of the petitioner . In the instant case , the short term loan has been sanctioned for  Rs.31,00o/-  but the  disbursement  for  khariff   Crop has been done  for Rs. 12,000/- for his Ac-0-06  crops  cultivable  land. On the instruction of petitioner the O.P.no.1  insured the hypothecated crop of the petitioner by deducting Rs.270/- for the complainant  loan amount and deposited on 2.10.11 vide D.D No.764202  in Nodal branch to transmit the same to the concerned  Insurance Company. In the mean time the O.P.no.1 has not received the compensation amount from  the concerned Insurance company.  As per arrangement  receipt of claim amount  of  Govt.  notification is an automatic process . As soon as,  the Insurance company will pay the  amount  the same will be credited in the loan Account  of the petitioner  automatically .  In  the above circumstances,  the  C.C. case filed by the petitioner  as against the O.Ps is not at all maintainable  and is liable to be dismissed.

            In the mean time , the advocate of  O.P.no.1 suddenly also filed an affidavit on dt. 01.09.17 on behalf of Divisional  Manager, Nodal branch ,jajpur town branch who is the nodal branch of O.P.no.1 wherein it has been stated that they have already transmitted the last receipt insured amount received from NAIS to the concerned branch of O.P.no. 1 for payment to the concerned KCC loan holder . Hence the S.B.I, Jajpur town Branch/  Nodal  Branch  is no way responsible and liable for any   such deficiency occurred in providing services to the petitioner .  This O.P  is only a via - media under insurance contract   . Hence the duty is a  like post office.

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 regarding 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. 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 Boroda)  (2000)CPJ-115- Vimal ch. Grover Vrs. Bank of India)

Answer to issue No.2

The stand taken by the O.P 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 when the O.P no.1 did not paid the  crop  Insurance amount received from Nodal branch on 30.03.13 to the petitioner  immediately, thereafter the petitioner filed the present dispute before this Fora on 06.08.14 . .  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.P and if so 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 the petitioner in the year 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 KCC loan the insurance is mandatory which must be done by the O.Ps .  In the written version  the O.P.no.1  has taken the pleas that as soon as the insurance company will pay the amount,  the amount will be credited to the loan account  of the petitioner automatically . On the other hand the advocate for O.P.no. 1 filed an affidavit from the side of the Nodal branch of O.P.no.1 namely SBI, Jajpur Town branch , the Divisional manager who has  stated that on dt.10.8.12 with reference to NIC Khariff  2011  season claim has been received from Insurance company  and  it has been clearly mentioned that an amount of Rs.2,25,17,884.28  has been sent to the branch vide CH.No.471181 dt.10.8.12 as insurance claim amount to be payble as per claim statement , where as Rs.3,83,109.39   was specifically for all affected  village /panchayat of under S.B.I  kaipada and Balichandrapur branches Hence the amount was equally and proportionately transferred to  the respective branches. Thereafter dt.03.06.15 S.B.I ,Jajpur Town Nodal  branch again transferred an amount Rs.41,184.39 to S.B.I, Balichandrapur branch  and  distribution for payment to the concerned KCC  insured loan holder.  In the circumstances we do not understand under what circumstances the O.P.no.1 slept over this matter  besides not paying  the insured amount to the petitioner , for which  the petitioner  has been constrained to file this present dispute  . This attitude of the O.P.no.1  not only speaks of gross deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice .

The above analysis from our side 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.No.1  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 .                                

 

                                                        O R D E R           

The dispute is allowed against the O.P no.1  on contest  and dismissed against O.P.no.2 and 3 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 . No cost.

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