Date of filing :- 25/06/2015.
Date of Order:- 26/09/2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H
Consumer Complaint No. 38 of 2015
Surendra Kumar Mahapatra, son of Harihara Mahapatra, aged about 50(fifty) years, Occupation- Cultivation, R/o. Sayan, Po. Deogaon Ps/District-Bargarh
..... ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
- V e r s u s -
The Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Bargarh Branch, P.o./Dist. Bargarh, Odisha – 768028.
Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited, represented through its Regional Manager, Regional Office-7 Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar-751007, Odisha
..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties.
For the Complainant:- Sri J. Mahapatra, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one):- Sri A.K. Patra, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two):- Sri A.K. Dash, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt.26/09/2016 -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Sri P.K. Dash, Member:-
The Complaint pertains to deficiency in service enumerated under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986. The brief facts of the Complaint is described here under.
That the Complainant is a loanee farmer having cultivable lands in the Gudesira Gram Panchayat. The Opposite Party No.1(one), i.e. B.M, United Bank of India, Bargarh is a banking institution where in the Complainant is having his loan and saving accounts. The Opposite Party No.2(two) i.e. Agricultural Insurance Company, Bhubaneswar is the insurance company which deals with the implementation of crop insurance scheme declared by the government.
That the Complainant is a regular borrower of Opposite Party No.1(one) for both the Rabi and Kharif cultivation season. As such he (Complainant)was having a loan account i.e. United Kishan Credit Account bearing No.045425304135C with The Opposite No.1(one) during 2013 season. The said loan account subsequently changed to account No. 045425304669. The Complainant is also a regular customer of the Opposite Party No.1(one) having saving Bank Account No. 0454010063665.
That the Govt. of Odisha as per its notification has implemented the crops Insurance scheme i.e. National Agricultural Insurance scheme (NAIS) for Kharif 2013 crop season and the loanee farmers were compulsorily covered under the guidelines of the scheme for growing insurable notified crops in the notified areas. As per guidelines of the scheme the premium for crops Insurance ought to be debited by the bank from the loan account of the farmer and the same be remitted to the insurance company implementing the NAIS scheme of Govt. and in case of any adverse seasonal condition, the percentage of crop damage declared by the government to be paid by the insurance company.
That as such during Kharif 2013 the Complainant was availed with a loan by the Opposite Party No.1(one) out of which the Complaint had withdrawn amount of Rs.70,000/-(Rupees seventy thousand)only for growing the crop and unfortunately due to adverse weather condition the Kharif crop 2013 was severely damaged with a very poor yield. The Complainant from his co-tenant farmers could learn that govt has declared crops failure for the Kharif 2013 to the tune of 36.95% for the Gudesira Gram Panchayat on Dt.26/09/2014 and the farmers have received the crops insurance benefit from the Opposite Party No.1(one) bank. When this facts came to the knowledge of the Complainant, he visited the Opposite Party No.1(one) bank twice on Dt.09/02/2015 and again on Dt.11/03/2015 and approached the bank officials to disburse his crops insurance benefit amount for Kharif 2013 crops season but the bank authority did not pay any heed to his approach and request. Lastly the Complainant could learn that the Opposite Party No.1(one) bank had not debited the insurance premium from the loan account of the Complainant and as such had not remitted the same to the Opposite Party No.2(two) insurance company for insurance of the crop for Kharif 2013 season for which the Complainant is deprived of from getting the insurance amount declared by the Govt.
That for such acts of Opposite Parties the Complainant suffered both mental and physical agony, so also the pecuniary loss for the negligence and deficiency in service of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant seeks direction of the Forum to direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.25,866/-(Rupees twenty five thousand eight hundred sixty six)only as crop insurance benefit for Kharif 2013, compensation of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) only for mental agony and physical harassments, Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for litigation expenses total amounting to Rs.55,866/-(Rupees fifty five thousand eight hundred sixty six)only with interest @ 9 % (nine percent) per annum from the date 26/09/2014 i.e. date of payment of Kharif 2013 crops insurance by the insurance company along with pendentilite and future interest and further the Opposite Party No.1(one) be directed to credit the said amount in the loan account of the Complainant and adjust the same against the loan out standing besides any other fit and equitable relief deemed just by the Forum.
The Complainant in support of his contention relies upon the xerox copies of the following documents :-
Notification of NAIS scheme for Kharif 2013 (2 sheets)
Operational Modalities of NAIS(4 sheets)
Complaint Dt.09/02/2015 and 11/03/2015 to the B.M, United Bank of India, Bargarh Branch (2 sheets)
Copy of Complaint petition Dt.23/06/2015 (3 sheets)
Indian postal order (2 sheets)
Account of Surendra Mahapatra bearing AC No. 0454010063665 and new UKC A/C No. 045425304669 (7 sheets)
Complaint to have admitted, hearing the advocate for Complainant on admission.
Being noticed the Opposite Parties appeared through their respective counsels, filed their version having denied most of the allegations of the Complaint.
The Opposite Party No.1(one) contends in his version that neither any cause of action for this proceeding nor is the complaint maintainable as the Complainant is not a consumer of this Opposite Party so also for non joinder of necessary party like the Govt. The Opposite Party No.1(one) has acted like a post office between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.2(two) and has got no role to play.
Further the Opposite Party No.1(one) contends in his version that as the Complainant neither contacted the Opposite Party No.1(one) nor provided any instruction to deduct the insurance premium from his bank account and to pay the same to the Opposite Party No.2(two) the insurance company and due to fault of the Complainant he could not able to comply the insurance paraphernalia of which the Opposite Party No.2(two) legally repudiated the claim. All other averments of the complaint regarding crop loss in Kharif-2013 season in Gudesira Gram Panchayat, percentage of crop failure declared by the Government for the same crop, Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1(one) twice to release his crops insurance benefit declared by the Government for Kharif-2013 season, Opposite Party No.1(one) had not debited the insurance premium for which he was deprived to get the insurance benefit for Kharif-213 crop season, all those acts of negligence of Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service to the Complainant for which the Complainant sustained pecuniary loss, mental agony and harassment and claim Rs.55,866/-(Rupees fifty five thousand eight hundred sixty six)only for all count against the Opposite Parties is denied specifically by the Opposite Party No.1(one) in his version.
The Opposite Party No.1(one) in his prayer seeks dismissal of the complaint against him with cost.
The Opposite Party No.2(two) in its version contends that this Opposite Party is a company implementing the Rastriya Krishi Bima Yojaya (PKBY) on behalf of the Central Government and the State Government. The Government of India introduced country vide crop insurance scheme “RKBY” (RKBY/ NAIS) from Rabi -1999-2000 season where in the participation of state is voluntary. The Government of Odisha has implemented the R.K.B.Y. Scheme since 1999-2000 season. That the paddy along with other agricultural products were notified to be insured for Kharif-2013 season by the notification of Government of Odisha.
Further the version of Opposite Party No.2(two) contends the elaborate provisions and implementation of the R.K.B.Y./NAIS by different governmental and non-governmental agencies. That as per the scheme provisions contained in RKBY/NAIS, the farmers availed with crops loan for the notified crop from the Commercial Banks, Regional Rural Banks and District Co-operative Banks are compulsorily covered and for Non-loanee farmers the scheme is optional. That the crop loss is decided as per the scheme procedure and not by any other method. That as per the scheme provision for Kharif-2013 season (claim was paid to Gudesira Gram Panchayat @ 36.95% (approx)). That the crop insurance premium in respect of Kharif-2013 season has not been deducted by the disbursing branch i.e United Bank of India, Bargarh the Opposite Party No.1(one) for its onwards remittance to the Opposite Party No.2(two) Insurance Company. As such this Opposite Party has not received crop insurance premium of the Complainant and the Complainant was not considered to be covered under NAIS Kharif 2013 season and no way liable for the claim.
Further version of Opposite Party No.2(two) contends that as per the special condition for Financial Institution/Nodal Banks/ loan disbursing points described under the Role and Responsibilities of Financial Institutions “in case of farmer is deprived of any benefit under the Scheme due to error/omission/commissions of the Nodal Bank/ Branch/ PACS the concerned institution only shall make good all such losses.
The Opposite Party No.2(two) prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint against him stating to have no negligence or deficiency on its part for settlement of the claim of the Complainant.
The Opposite Party No.2(two) to full proof the contentions of his version relies upon the xerox copies of the following documents.
Certificate about the crop damage (1 sheet)
Payment detailed of claim by AICL for Kharif 2013 season (1 sheet)
Delving deep into the matter, pleadings of the parties, memo of arguments filed by the Parties and hearing the counsels for the parties found some facts admitted by the Parties.
Facts admitted
Complainant is a saving bank account holder and a loanee farmer under the Opposite Party No.1(one) bank.
The crop insurance premium of the Complainant for Kharif 2013 season was not deducted and remitted by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to the Opposite Party No.2(two).
Complainant was devoid of getting the crop insurance benefit for a Kharif 2013 crop season.
The facts which are admitted by the Parties need not be probe.
The core issues likely to be decided are as follows:-
Whether Complainant is a consumer under the Opposite Party NO.1(one).
Whether the Opposite Parties are negligent and deficient in providing service to the Complainant and whether are liable for the same ?
What relief the Complainant is entitled to ?
Answering issue No.1(one), the Complainant is a saving bank account holder of the Opposite Party No.1(one) bank bearing No. 0454010063665, out of which business transaction the Opposite Party No.1(one) earns profit and for banking transaction, the account holders are costumer under the banks.
So far every loan account of the customers are concerned, the loanee are customers under the bank availing loan because the financial institutions inflict rate of interest upon the loan amount while repayment of the same. The Opposite Party No.1(one) in its version has attributed a wrong logic that for crop loan the Complainant is not paying any service charges for which he is not a consumer of him. The insurance company implementing the NAIS scheme pay to the Nodal banks the amount of insurance benefit as per the notification of percentage of crop failure declared by the government and the same is credited in the loan account of the loanee farmer. This does not mean that the total loan availed by the banking institution to the complainant is waived out the loan amount along with interest lies all along for its repayment. The insurance benefit obtained by the farmer is a financial relief in repayment of crop loan to the bank availing the loan. So the bank or financial institution granting the crop loan to the loanee farmer is earning interest from it which is a service charge paid by the Complainant/Farmer to the bank. As such the Complainant is a consumer under the Opposite Party No.1(one). The answer to the issue No.1(one) is affirmative in nature.
In answering the issue No.2(two) as per the guideline of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS). The loanee farmer are compulsorily covered under the scheme availing crop loans from Bank/Financial Institutions for growing insurable notified crop in the notified area. The insurance premium for crop insurance has to be debited in the loan account of the loanee farmers by the bank and to remit the same to the Agricultural Insurance Company. In case any loss accrued to the crop due to adverse seasonal condition, as per the evaluation of crop loss by the government, the Aricultural Insurance Company Limited has to indemnify the loss. This fact is supported by the document i.e. operational modalities of NAIS filed by the Complainant and also from the version of the Opposite Party No.2(two) which spells about the guidelines of the above referred scheme and its implementation. The Opposite Party No.1(one) in rebuttal to the allegation of the Complaint speaks in his version and memo of argument that the insurance premium for the Kharif Crop 2013 season could not be debited and remitted to the Opposite Party No.2(two) as the Complainant had not instructed him to do so. By perusal of the accounts of the Complainant in his Account No. 0454010063665 it is found that crop insurance premium have been deducted by the Opposite Party No.1(one) in the later years. The Opposite Party No.1(one) could have filed the instruction letters if any issued by the Complainant to deduct the premium before the Forum to justify his claim and logic. As per the provision contained in the guidelines of NAIS, no instruction of the loanee farmer is necessary for the bank/financial institutions to debit the insurance premium and to remit the same to the Agricultural Insurance Company Ltd. Hence this contention of Opposite Party No.1(one) that due to want of instruction from the Complainant the insurance premium for Kharif 2013 could not be debited and remitted to Opposite Party No.2(two) for insurance of the crops is not accepted by the form and the Opposite Party No.1(one) is liable for negligence and deficiency in providing service to the Complainant. It is admitted by the Opposite Party No.1(one) in its version and memo of argument that insurance premium of the Complainant for Kharif 2013 crop season had not been remitted to the Opposite Party No.2(two). It is the guiding principle of insurance that “no premium no insurance”. Hence the Opposite Party No.2(two) is exonerated of the charges leveled against him in the Complaint. The issue No.2(two) is answer affirmatively.
In answering the issue No.3(three), as per the guidelines the loanee farmers are compulsorily covered under the NAIS for crop insurance benefit. The Gudesira Gram Panchayat of Bargarh block was also declared 36.95% crop failure in govt notification for Kharif 2013 which fact is supported by the document i.e. Certificate of the Kharif 2013 crop damage filed by the Opposite Party No.2(two). More over from the version para-11 of the Opposite Party No.2(two) while interpreting the provision of NAIS it reveals that as per the point No.5(five) of the scheme for Role and Responsibilities of Financial Institution “in case a farmer is deprived of benefit under the scheme due to error/omission/commission of the Nodal Bank/Branch/PACS, the concerned institution only shall make good all such losses”. Here in the case at hand also the Opposite Party No.1(one) has committed error in not deducting the crop insurance premium of the Complainant for Kharif-2013 crop season for its onwards remittance to the Opposite Party No.2(two) for insurance coverage of the said crop. In the aforesaid circumstance owing to the provision of law contained in the NAIS for Kharif 2013 season the Complainant is entitled for amount of crop insurance benefit along with any other incidental relief attached there to.
With all paramount consideration of facts and evidence, provision of law enunciated in Consumer Protection Act-1986 the Forum Order as follows:-
O R D E R
The Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to pay Rs. 25,866/-(Rupees twenty five thousand eight hundred hundred sixty six)only i.e. 36.95% of crop failure for the Kharif -2013 season to the Complainant along with a compensation towards mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses of Rs.7,000/-(Rupees seven thousand)only within one month from the Order, failing which the total awarded amount shall carry @12% interest per annum till the final payment of amount.
The Opposite Party No.2(two) is exonerated from the charges levelled against him by the Complainant.
The Complaint is allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r.
I agree,
(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
