Orissa

Jajapur

CC/61/2016

Satyanarayan Mohanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

03 Jul 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 3rd day of July,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.61 of 2016

 

Satya narayan Mohanty  S/OLate Baidyanath Mohanty

At. Gandakul,(Kaspa)  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:   03. 07.2017.

MISS SMITA  RAY, LADY MEMBER .

 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.30,000/- 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. 30,000/ in favour of him under KCC loan bearing A//C No.407114010000021 on 21.08.2014 and out of  the sanctioned amount of Rs. 30,000/- the O.P kept Rs.675/ as Insurance premium .Subsequently due to crop loss owing to  natural calamities  the farmers Kaspa G.P entitled to  get 99% as 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 to get  Insurance claim though  the crops has been fully damaged. 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.675/- on 18.09.14 towards Insurance premium .

            The Insurance claim of Rs.30,000/- from the O.P Bank is not at all legally sustainable. The O.P is not liable to pay Insurance claim. The petitioner is not entitled to any expenditure from the O.P. The petitioner has not applied for any loan of paddy crop. He had applied for cultivation  of Brinjal which is not covered under N.A.I.S . The deduction of Insurance premium was not made from A/C of the petitioner . The O.P has no latches at all and no deficiency in service. The petitioner has not insisted for deduction of premium from the loan A/C of the petitioner. The petitioner has never deposited Insurance premium in his A/C. 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  in operation . 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 ,  we heard the arguments from both the parties .  After perusal of the record along with documents in details filed from both the sides  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 the 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 Supreme  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 . It is our considered views that the O.P deposited  the premium amount of insurance on 18.08.14 for which the complainant came to know that  his crops was not insured by the O.P . The D.G.M, National Agricultural Insurance Bhubaneswar, vide his letter No,438/2015 dt.16.09.15 declared G.P wise claim statement .  Thereafter the complainant has filed the present dispute against the O.P on dt.04.08.16 .  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 petitioner deposited Rs.675/- on 18.08.14   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  the petitioner has not insisted for deduction of premium from the loan A/C of the petitioner. The petitioner has never deposited Insurance premium in his A/c . It should not be treated as a deficiency in service .

            In this contest we verify the KCC loan pass book filed from both the parties and observed that the amount of Rs.675/- which was deposited  by the petitioner as Insurance premium was not deposited by the O.P for  NAIs as result the petitioner has been  debarred to get  Insurance claim . It is also observed  that the amount of Rs.675/ which was deposited by the petitioner i.e 18.09.14 was immediately transferred and credited to the KCC loan account  taking  the stand that such brijnal cultivation was not covered under NAIs Govt.Of India.          

The above analysis from our side clearly  go to establish that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.p in the present dispute.

Hence this Order

            In the result the dispute is dismissed on contest against the O.P. No cost.                                                                          .                                                                             .                          

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 3rd day of July,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.