Orissa

Jajapur

CC/65/2016

Laxmidhar Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Odisha Gramya Bank,Kaspa Branch. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Jun 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 2nd day of June,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.65 of 2016

Laxmidhar Mishra  S/O Late Kunja Mishra

At. Ramchandrapur, P.O.Ahiyas

P.S.Mangalpur , Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

Branch Manager,Odisha Gramya Bank, Kaspa Branch,At.Kaspa

P.O. Ahiyas, Dt.Jajpur.

                                                                                                                              ……………..Opp.Party.                  

For the Complainant:                         Self.

For the Opp.Party :                            Sri G.Ch.Panda, Miss B.R.Rout, Advocates.

                                                                                                            Date of order:   02. 06.2017.

SHRI  JIBAN BALLAV DAS, PRESIDENT .

             Deficiency in banking service is the grievance of the complainant.

            The facts as stated in the complaint petition shortly are that the petitioner being an Agriculturist of Kaspa G.P within the Dist of Jajpur had taken a KCC loan of Rs.48,000/- from the O.P Orisha Gramya Bank Kaspa Branch for agricultural purpose . It is stated by the petitioner that the O.P had sanctioned the loan of Rs. 48,000/ in favour of him under KCC loan bearing A//C No.407114010000020 on 29.09.2014 and out of  the sanctioned amount of Rs. 48,000/- the O.P kept Rs.1125/ as Insurance premium .Subsequently due to crop loss owing to  natural calamities  the farmers Kaspa G.P claimed to  get 99% Insurance claim since the crops were fully damaged  .On  enquiry, it is ascertained that the O.P has not deposited the Insurance premium of the petitioner in the Insurance Co. for which the petitioner  has been debarred from getting  Insurance claim though  the crops has been fully damaged. In such situation the petitioner  served a written application to the Chariman of the O.P but after receipt of the said application the O.P remained silent .Accordingly  the petitioner  has filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the O.P to make payment of 99%  Insurance claim and other relief as  deemed fit.

After notice the O.P appeared through their learned advocate and filed the written version taking  the following stands:-

            The case is not at all maintainable.

            The petitioner has no cause of action to file this case against the O.P.

            The claim is barred by limitation. The petitioner has never approached this Forum within time and  making an application at a belated stage will not give rise to fresh cause of action in favour of the petitioner.

            The petitioner is not bonafide person  to claim this relief against the O.P. The loan Account of the petitioner has been closed. The petitioner has never claimed to  the O.P for Insurance claim before the closure of his account. He has  availed a new loan. The petitioner is not a consumer under the C.P. Act and rules .

            It is false to say that the petitioner has opened K.C.C pass book in Odisha Gramya Bank ,Kaspa for the purpose to avail benefit of agricultural loan and benefit of Insurance claim in case of crop loss owing to  natural calamities. It is false to say that the complainant had deposited Rs.1125/- on 29.09.14 towards Insurance premium .

The claim of Insurance of Rs.48,000/- from the O.P Bank is not at all legally sustainable. The petitioner is not entitled to claim  any expenditure from the O.P. For the 1^st time in the year 2014 due to in advertence Insurance premium was deducted from the account of the petitioner. But the said premium was not accepted as the petitioner was not eligible under NAIs of Govt. of India Because he has applied for brinjal cultivation which is not a notified crop. The deduction of Insurance premium by mistake was credited to the loan account of the petitioner with interest when it came to the knowledge of the O.P. The O.P has no  latches at all and no deficiency in service. It was a bonafide mistake due to inadvertence of the O.P. It should not be treated as a deficiency in service. Thus the O.P is not liable for any compensation nor Insurance claim amount.

            The petitioner knows very well that his case is not covered under the NAIs. The petitioner has closed his loan account and has not raised any complaint before the O.P when the loan account was  live. He has availed a fresh loan.

For the above reasons the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

            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 complainant 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 Supre court reported in 1995(2)SCC-150-S.C(Consumer unit and Trust society Vrs. Chariman 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 vide para-3 of the written  version  that the present dispute is barred by limitation as  provided under C.P. Act. It is our considered views that the O.P debited the premium amount of insurance on 29.09.14 for which the complainant came to know that  his crops was not insured by the O.P  when the D.G.M, National Agricultural Insurance Bhubaneswar, vide his letter No,438/2015 dt.16.09.15 declared G.P wise claim statement and  as well as send the regd.

notice to the Chairman of the O.P regarding clarification of the insurance claim on dt. 23.04.16.                 Thereafter the complainant has filed the present dispute against the O.P on dt.16.09.16 .  As such the dispute is within the period of limitation as per section 24 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 has sanctioned a KCC loan  in favor of the complainant and  as against the above cited loan the O.P debited Rs.1125/- on 29.09.14  from the loan account for the purpose of Insurance premium .Further as per term and condition of the KCC loan the insurance is mandatory which  must be done by the O.P .In the written version  the O.P has taken the plea that due to inadvertence  Insurance Premium was deducted from the loan account of the complainant but the said premium was not accepted since  complainant  was not covered  under National agricultural Insurance scheme Govt. of India because he has applied the KCC loan for brinjal cultivation which is not a notified crop .The O.P also has taken the plea that deduction of Insurance premium was by mistake and the same has already  been credited to the loan account of the complainant with interest. In such situation we verified the statement of loan account of the complainant filed from the side of the O.P it is reflected that the O.P has  returned  the premium amount with interest  i.e after receipt of notice of the present dispute which is after  lapse of 27 months .On the other hand we have no hesitation to point out that under what circumstances they debited the premium amount for  crop Insurance  and subsequently credited the same  is nothing but after thought . In case the premium was not accepted by National Agricultural Insurance Scheme  Govt of India  was it not the duty of  the O.P to inform about the fact to the complainant ? But the O.P without intimating the complainant  immediately  or credited the premium amount along with interest to the loan account , for which  the complainant issued a Regd. application to the Chairman of the O.P regarding clarification of crop insurance but the O.P  slept over the matter . Hence, the complainant was constrained to file the present dispute .This attitude of the O.P not only speaks of gross deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice as per observation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2013(1) CPR-456 –NC(M/S Rita Vrs. Sikander Singh) wherein it is held that :

            “Non reply of notice may draw adverse inference “.

            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 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 on contest . The O.P is directed to pay the Insurance claim against the kharif crops for the year of 2014 as per term and condition of the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme Govt. of India as declared  kharif crop loss against the complainant G.P  after deducting the premium amount along with interest which has already returned by the O.P to the complainant 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 ) .                                                               .                                                                             .                             

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 2nd day of June,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.