Presented by Smt. A.Behera, Member:-
Fact of the case:-
Case of the Complainant is that, he was a Consumer of the Bank here Opposite Party No.1(one) and availed crop loan from the Opposite Party Bank and was doing his transactions through Pass Book K.C.C. 490. Complainant deposited Rs. 3596.75/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred ninety six and seventy five paise)only for insurance of his paddy crop for Kharif-2008 and got insured for a sum of Rs. 1,43,840/-(Rupees one lakh forty three thousand eight hundred forty)only on Dt.12/07/2008 Complainant through enquiring come to know that after the government declaration a sum of Rs. 21,916/-(Rupees twenty one thousand nine hundred sixteen)only has been deposited in his Account as compensation and another amount of Rs. 2,596/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred ninety six)only is also returned to his account from the earlier paid premium. As per the government declaration entitled to get 54.7908% of the insurance which amounts to Rs. 78,811/-(Rupees seventy eight thousand eight hundred eleven)only. Complainant demands Rs. 56,895/-(Rupees fifty six thousand eight hundred ninety five)only (The balancce amount of Rs. 78,811/-(Rupees seventy eight thousand eight hundred eleven)only) and Rs. 86,895/-(Rupees eight six thousand eight hundred seventy eight)only as the total compensation amount including Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only for compensation to all sufferings he received for non timely distribution of his legal dues.
Opposite Party No.1(one) counsel submitted his case with treat details relying on the various documents filed such as NAIS Scheme. The fact of Complaisant is a loanee and availed the crop insurance facility is not denied but that he has availed crop insurance for higher amount is not accepted. Again Opposite Party No.1(one) counsel expansed that this being a scheme of the government the Complainant is not a consumer. The Opposite Party No.1(one) also have noticed to the farmers to submit further documents.
However the contention of the Opposite Party No.1(one) is not accepted in view of as documents pertaining to noticing is filed.
The Opposite Party No.1(one) counsel submitted that, the money which were deducted were kept in some current account act not used for any purpose to run any profit nor has received any consideration for the transaction. So he is not a consumer and this petition lies to be dismissed. This contention of the Opposite Party No.1(one) is not accepted as being an account holder as well as a loanee of the Opposite Party No.1(one) the Complainant is a defecto consumer of Opposite Party No.1(one)
Opposite Party No.1(one) also contended that no request for enhanced insuracne is there and if the Complainant would have requested for enhanced insurance cover more amount would have been debited from his Account, which is not done and this fact can be seen from the filed Account statements.
Heard the submission of the counsels of both the parties. Perused the records and documents attached with the records. We find that the averments made by the Complainant about the pass books, deposits of the premium amounts and than the return at the later date are ascertained from the pass book and KCC Khata attached to the period.
It is also seen that, the case records and documents which are attached telling about how much land is insured for the crop loan as a loanee farmer and which land is proposed to be insured for non-loanee farmer. As a matter of common understanding whether a person can at the same time become a loanee farmer and non-loanee farmer is not maintainable. The documents available with the record shows two proposal forms for the same person one as a loanee farmer and another non-loanee farmer.
It is also ascertained from the record that, the crediting of deducted premium was done after a long gap of one year approximately for which no valid reasons sham by the Opposite Party Bank. Again when it is said that a certificate from Junior Agricultural Officer is required for both kind of farmers why loan is sanctioned to loanee farmers with absence of a J.A.O. Certificate and why the non-loanee farmers were denied the privilege when the loanee farmers also here submitted equal no of documents to avail crop insurance under the circumstances of Banks deficiency and negligence is clearly evident.
Another question arises is why the same person is availing crop loan failing for some of his land as loanee farmer and proposed to insure some either lands as non-loanee farmer because giving more premium he could have availed crop insurance for whole of his land available without any complication and on a single stage work.
However the records show that the Complainant received the insurance benefit as a loanee farmer and not received any thing for the non-loanee proposal. He has also received back the premium paid to the Bank which is credited to his Bank Account.
Counsel of Opposite Party No.2(two) submitted that, unless the premium are shifted to them along with other relevant documents it is not a proper contract of insurance and not complete over, thus the Opposite Party No.2(two) to be exonerated from the allegation. This was evident from the records as well as at the time of arguments when both party counsel submitted their causes before the Forum.
In absence of proper recommendation and shift of premiums to the Opposite Party No.2(two) the insurance company is not liable for any negligence on their part. However as this is a sensitive matter touching lives of thousands of farmers who feed the nation, the Opposite Party No.2(two) insurance company is directed to take some steps to smoothly channelize the procedure of insurance. So that poor rural farmers get the benefit of insurance schemes. Again delivering insurance benefit is not the part and parcel of the Bank, but the negligence caused is visible and deficiency is caused when some money is withdrawn from a Bank Account and is kept unnecessarily for one whole year without reason.
Again the insurance for which amount is not ascertainable from the available records and documents but from the documents attached to the case record and transactions if is presumed that why the sum of loan is insured and not else.
Under to circumstances and facts stated above we direct the Opposite Party No.1(one) Bank.
To give 9% (nine percent) interest per annum, on the sum which was deducted as premium for the Complainant as a non-loanee farmer for the whole period (stating from deduction to returning of the same to the saving Bank of Account ).
A sum of Rs. 4,000/-(Rupees four thousand )only as compensation for deficiency of service and unfair trade service on account of keeping the Complainant in dark about the activities going on with his amount.
A sum of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only towards litigation cost.
All the above to be completed within one month of passing of this order ailing which interest @ 18%(eighteen percent) is liable to be paid till actual realization of the award.
Disposed accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, I agree, I agree, (Smt. Anjali Behera) ( Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash) (Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)
M e m b e r. M e m b e r. P r e s i d e n t.
