Orissa

Jajapur

CC/29/2016

Maguni Nath Sharma. - Complainant(s)

Versus

G.M,SBI Jajpur Town Branch. - Opp.Party(s)

Ld.Adv

30 Jun 2018

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 30th day of  June,2018.

                                                      C.C.Case No. 29  of 2016

Maguni Nath Sharma   , S/O  Late Rama Nath Sharma  

Vill . Sahaspur (Danrkul) P.O. Mahamad Jamapur

P.S.  Jajpur Sadar,

Dist.- Jajpur .                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                   .                                     

                                                  (Versus)

 

1. G. M,SBI, Jajpur Town Branch , At/P.O/Dist.Jajpur .  

2. Nodal Bank,SBI, Jajpur Town Branch ,At/P.O/Dist .Jajpur .

3.R.M.National Agricultural Insurance Co.Ltd, Regional Office,

  Bhubaneswar .

                                                                                                                              ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                          

For the Complainant:                                          Sri L.D.Nayak,Advocate .

For the Opp.Parties : No.1& 2                            Sri P.K.Daspattnaik, Advocate.

For the Opp.parties : No.3                                  Sri  K.Ch.Kar,Advocate.

 

                                                                                                     Date of order:   30 .06.2018.

SHRI  PITABAS MOHANTY, MEMBER  .

            The petitioner filed the present dispute alleging not only deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice .

            The fact relevant as per complaint petition is that the petitioner is an agriculturist of  vill.Sahaspur within the district  of Jajpur .  He had taken a KCC loan of Rs. 53,000/-  for agricultural purpose .The petitioner also deposited the premium  for the purpose of crop insurance for the year 2013-14  a sum of  Rs. 1212.75/ on dt.9.10.13 before O.p.no.3 through O.p.1 and 2.  That due to high flood the crop of the petitioner’s  area has been damaged entirely  and the  Govt.  has declared  to waive out  84% of loan from  the farmer who has  availed  agriculture  loan under KCC scheme. It Is also mentioned here that the farmer of the petitioner G.P (Sahaspur)  are entitled to get the benefit of waive out of the loan due to flood stricken  area  but unfortunately the petitioner  has been deprived of to get the benefit due to deficiency of service of the O.Ps. The petitioner deserved  to get the benefit to waive out the loan amount of 84%  spent   by the petitioner for kharif   cultivation due to high flood in the year 2013 as  his  kharif  crop is completely damaged . The petitioner  has approached the O.P.no..1 several times with  written application but the O.P.no.1  has paid   deaf  ear to the application made by the petitioner . The petitioner made  an application dt.19.23.15, 28.09.15,and 20.11.15 but after receipt of the said application the O.P no.1  remained silent. Accordingly the petitioner  has filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the O.P.no.1   to waive out the total loan amount for the year 2013-14 and direct the O.P.no.3  to pay the Insurance benefit  as well as  Rs.20,000/- as compensation  and  Rs.5,000/-  towards  litigation cost.

            After notices the o.p.no.1  and 2 entered  appearance  through the learned  counsel and filed the written version  taking the following stands:

The case is not maintainable in the eye of law .

There is no cause of action to file any such proceeding against the O.ps .

That the claim of the complainant  is barred by law of limitation.

            That the complainant in his complain petition has furnished loan account numbers which is wrong one. Complainant who has alleged to be customer of the complainant bank is to be identified by his loan account number in the instant case, the loan account number furnished in the complain petition is a wrong one. Hence the bank could not have answered all those questions of the petitioner  as alleged. As per standard norms and practice of the O.P bank the subject of insurance for the Hypothecated goods remain with the option of the complainant. In the instant case the case KCC loan account number is a wrong. Hence complainant bank could not  ascertain the real fact as alleged by the complainant in this complain petition. This O.P  bank reserve the rights to supplement amend or file an additional written version after receipt  of correct K.C.C  loan account information from  the complainant .

            The O.P.no.3 also appeared through their learned  advocate  and filed the  written version  taking the following stands :-

            That the Agriculture Insurance Company ( O.P.No.3)  having its network of offices in different states .Before answering  to the grievances of the complainant it is stated  by O.P.no.3 that  so far as the implementation of the scheme regarding the claim payment,  submitted that the Insurance  for the crop is done unit area –wise  as per the notification issued by the Govt.  of Odisha and for that the branches of the Nodal bank  collects   the premium  from   the  cultivators  for the concerned area   send  the same to the designated nodal office who in turn sends  then consolidated Insurance declaration  Insurance unit - wise and  crop- wise to this O.Ps  designated in the RKBY  scheme  as implementing Agency  “  stating the numbers of farmers , crop ,season, year,district and block of the insured area along with  the premium .However no information on individual farmer is furnished to the implementing agency .

            That as per the petitioner claim all the Gram panchayat of 26 district of Odisha were notified under NAIS khariff 2013 season for paddy crop and the land of the petitioner is coming under Sahaspur GP of Jajpur Sadar Block of jajpur district which was also notified for paddy crop under NAIS khariff 2013 season . That the O.P has already settled the amount of rs.3,78,18,018 .80 towards claims under NAIS khariff 2013 season for the Nodal Bank i.e SBI Town Branch  on 09.10.2015  out of which Rs.4,45,759.42/- towards Sahaspur G.P benefiting 13 loanee farmers having sum insured of Rs.5,30,300.00/- for paddy crop on the basis of the declaration received from the above Nodal Office i.e O.p.no.2 . But whether the above said petitioner was covered or not within the 13 beneficial farmers of the GP is not within the knowledge of this O.P which can only be confirmed by O.P.no.1 and 2.

                        In view of above forging,  apparently  there is no negligence or deficiency on the part of O.P no.3 for settlement of this claim .  Hence it is humbly prayed that the claim against O.P.no.3 may kindly be dismissed .

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 petitioner did not receive  his Insurance claim .He  has written  letters  to O.Ps  on  19.03.15,28.09.15 and 20.11.15  as well as the O.p.no.3 who   has stated in the  written version that he has settled the insurance claim of the petitioner and send the settled amount to the Nodal Bank i.e SBI Town Branch jajpur on 09.10.2015.   Thereafter the complainant has filed the present dispute  on 06.04.16 .  As such  it is our considered view that 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 petitioner  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 favour of the petitioner as the above cited loan the petitioner has paid  the premium to  O.P.no.3 though O.P.NO.1  for crop insurance policy. .Further as per term and condition of the KCC loan the insurance is mandatory which  must be done by the O.P no.1  . .The O.P.no.3  also categorically   stated in the  written version  that he has already settled  the Insurance claim of Rs 3,78,18,018.80  under NAIS  kharif  2013 season for the Nodal Bank i.e SBI Town Branch Jajpur on 09.10.15  out of which Rs 4,45,759.42 towards petitioner’s  G.P ( Sahaspur G.P  ) for benefiting  13 loanee farmers  having sum insured of Rs.5,30.300.00/-  for paddy crop on the basis of  the declaration received  from the above Nodal Office  i.e  O.P.no.2  . In the peculiar circumstances the O.p.no.1 and 2 stated in their written version  that the petitioner in his complaint petition  has furnished the loan  account number which is a wrong one   .The petitioner who  has  alleged to be  a customer of the  O.P (Bank ) is to be identified by his loan account number in the  instant case if  the loan account number  is  furnished in the complaint petition is a wrong one ,   the O.P bank could  not have answered all the questions,   the petitioner  has alleged .

The O.P.no.1  also filed an affidavit on dt 13.04.18 wherein stated  that “

            “ That as per amicable arrangement and approval of the Bank management this branch has sent name of the borrower /  complainant to its higher office for sanction of his crop insurance claim amount . As soon as the approval came from its controlling office  the branch will be able to release the amount and credit it in  the same in the loan A/C of the complainant /  borrower.”

            It is also a fact that the petitioner issued 3 written application  to the O.P. no.1   regarding clarification of the crop insurance but the O.P  slept over the matter. Hence, the petitioner  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 .

 Hence this Order

The dispute is allowed against the O.P No.1 and 2  on contest  and dismissed against O.P.no.3 . The O.P no.1 and 2  are  directed to pay the Insurance claim against the  crops  Insurance for the year of 2013-14  as per term and condition of the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme Govt. of India as declared / credited to O.p.no.1 and 2 by O.P.no.3  within one month from the date of receipt of this order to the petitioner  failing which the awarded amount will carry 9% interest from the date of filing of the present dispute till its realization  along with the O.P.no.1 and 2 are liable to pay  Rs.5,000/-( five thousand ) towards cost and compensation .  The petitioner can take steps   as per provision of C.P.Act ,for its realization.

            This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th  day of  June,2018. under my hand and seal of the Forum.