BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 71 of 2018
Date of Institution : 21.02.2018.
Date of Decision : 29.04.2019.
- Ved Pal (aged about 38 years) son of Sh.Chander Muni,
- Smt.Sugna Devi (aged about 65 years) wife of Sh.Chander Muni, both residents of village Rupawas, Tehsil & District Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus
HDFC Bank Lmt.Branch G.P.O. Sirsa (Branch Code – 1413), S.R.B. Building, Janta Bhawan Road, GPO, Sirsa District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL …… MEMBER.
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.S.Sethi, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
Brief facts, of the complaint are, as under:
The complainants are agriculturists by profession having land in village Rupawas. They have taken KCC Limit on their land from the branch of OP having their joint KCC A/c No.50200005433173, which was opened on 06.05.2014. On 17.08.2016, the complainants obtained crop insurance for their cotton crop of Kharif 2016 under PMFBY scheme from the OP and an amount of Rs.6648/- was deducted by the OP from the KCC account of the complainants as premium. On 10.01.2017, the complainants have also purchased the above said insurance policy for the wheat crop of Rabi, 2017 and a sum of Rs.4620/- was also deducted from the said account as per their consent. On 31.07.2017, the complainants have also obtained said policy for cotton crop of Kharif, 2017 and an amount of Rs.7728/- was deducted from their account but the OP bank had cancelled the said insurance policy of cotton crop, 2017 without getting any consent or permission from the complainants. The complainants have obtained the said policy for their safety and to preserve them from unnecessary harassment and loss. The act and conduct of the OP clearly amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, therefore, the complainants got served legal notice upon the Op for continuing the said policy but to no avail. Due to non-redressal of the grievance by the OP, the complainants have suffered harassment, humiliation, pain, agony and hardship etc. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, the Op appeared and filed its reply wherein it has been submitted that that complainants have got no jurisdiction to file the present complaint; that the complainants have not come to this Forum with clean hands and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It has been further submitted that that the bank had debited an amount of Rs.6648/- from account of the complainants for issuance of the insurance policy as per the instructions of the complainants as the insurance of the crop was got done by the owner of the land and not by the bank. In this way, the insurance contract is in between the owner and the insurance company and the OP-bank is not a party to the same. It has been further submitted that an amount of Rs.7728/- was debited from the account of the complainants on account of insurance of the crop, but thereafter, the complainant objected to it strongly, on the ground that the amount has been debited without their consent, therefore, the bank had refunded this amount to the complainants. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op and the complainants have not suffered any loss, mental agony, pain and hardship due to the act and conduct of the Op. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Thereafter, both the parties have led their respective evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The complainants in order prove their case have produced the affidavit of complainant No.1 Ex.C1, wherein he has reiterated all the facts mentioned in the complaint and also tendered documents such as legal notice Ex.C2, postal receipt Ex.C3, pass book Ex.C4, and acknowledgment as Ex.C5. On the other hand, op has produced affidavit of Sh.Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manger Ex.RW1/A wherein he has reiterated the pleas taken in the reply and also produced statement of account of complainants Ex.R1 and agreement for overdraft/cash credit cum guarantee cum hypothecation Ex.R2.
6. Admittedly, the complainants are holding a KCC account with the OP, which was allegedly opened on 06.05.2014. It is further admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had agreed to get their crop insured with the OP-bank under the PMFBY scheme and purchased the policy in question on 17.08.2016 for the cotton crop of Kharif 2016 and a sum of Rs.6648/- was deducted from their account and thereafter on 10.01.2017, a sum of Rs.4620/- was deducted on account of insurance policy for the wheat crop of Rabi 2017.
7. It is also an admitted fact between the parties that on 31.07.2017 again, a sum of Rs.7728/- was deducted for insurance policy for cotton crop of Kharif 2017 and the said amount was refunded in the account of the complainants on 11.08.2017.
8. The bone of contention between the parties is qua the refund of this amount. As per allegations of the complainants, this amount was deducted by the bank in order to pay premium for the crop insurance of the complainants, but however, the said amount was refunded in the account of the complainants without any notice and did not get the crop of the complainants insured with the insurance company due to the reasons best known to the bank. Though, the bank has taken its defect plea that the complainants had raised voice against this deduction, as a result of which, the bank officials have refunded the amount in their account. The perusal of the evidence of the OP reveals that except the mere affidavit of Sh.Saurabh Mehta, Assistant Manager, has not placed any other record, from which it could be presumed that the bank official has made refund of this amount on the request of the complainants. Before filing the present complaint, the complainants have served legal notice through their counsel, copy of which is Ex.C2 on record, but the OP has not placed on record any reply to the notice sent to the complainants. It appears that the plea taken by the officials of the OP is devoid of any merit and only a mere excuse on the part of the bank official. So, this act and conduct of the OP clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part.
9. In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainants. Compliance of the order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum: President,
Dated: 29.04.2019 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
