By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986
The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
1. The complainant is stated that he availed two agricultural loans of Rs.15,00,000/-
each from the bank of opposite party. Due to heavy loss of money, the complainant left from cultivation and on 01/06/2017 he informed same to the opposite party . So the complainant remitted entire balance amount of one agricultural loan and thereby closed the same. But on 30/07/2017 the opposite party withdrawn Rs. 39,000/- from the account of the complainant towards agriculture insurance. When the complainant contacted the head office of the opposite party and informed that there was no cultivation, then the opposite party returned the amount to the account of the complainant. The complainant kept the remaining balance of unclosed loan in his overdraft account for Agriculture purposes. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant was regularly used to repay the instalments and no default was committed. But the opposite party again withdrawn Rs. 97,518.97/- from the overdraft amount of the complainant (A/c No.50200008631587) without the permission of the complainant. On enquiry it was revealed by the opposite party that the withdrawal of amount was meant to remit for the insurance agricultural crop. According to the complainant, there was no contract for insurance of agricultural crop or no longer was he doing cultivation. So, on 17/10/2019, the complainant filed petition before Kottakkal Police to get back the amount unlawfully withdrawn from his account. As a result, on 28/01/2019 the opposite party credited the amount into the account of the complainant. It is further stated in the complaint that the complainant is used to remit monthly instalment regularly without making any default. It is averred in the complaint that on 23/05/2019 the complainant received a letter without date from the opposite party demanding to pay Rs.1,22,971/- otherwise legal action will be initiated including revenue recovery proceedings against the complainant. According to the complainant no default of instalments has been committed as stated in the notice. The opposite party issued such notice with malicious intention to harass the complainant. Later on 28/02/2019, the opposite party collected Rs. 89,160/- from the account of the complainant without permission. The complainant approached the opposite party for many times to get back the amount, but the opposite party was turned down and not repaid the amount. In addition to that on 06/06/2019, the opposite party collected Rs.5,018.31/- from one of the SB Account of the complainant (A/c No.50100060897633) and also collected Rs.21,132.45/- from another SB account of the complainant (A/c No.15941530007746). The above said collection of money was done without obtaining permission from the complainant. The act of the opposite party is caused irreparable loss and hardship to the complainant. The opposite party committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice towards the complainant resulting mental agony. So the complainant prayed for an order of direction to the opposite party to recall and cancel notice demanding pay Rs. 1,22,297/- issued to the complainant. It is further prayed by the complainant that a direction is issued to the opposite party to refund Rs. 89,160.20/- which was unauthorisedly collected from the account of the complainant with 12% interest from 28/02/2019 onwards. The complainant claimed Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation from the opposite party for the sufferings of mental agony and hard ship caused due to the act of opposite party . The complainant prayed for another order of direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 50,000/- as the cost of the proceedings.
2. The complainant is admitted on file and issued notice to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed version.
3. The opposite party filed version denying the allegations put forward by the complainant. According to the opposite party, complainant approached the Commission by suppressing material facts and it lack bonafides and liable to be dismissed. It is contended that the complainant is not a consumer and there is no consumer dispute arisen in this case. The relationship between the complainant and the opposite party is that of debtor and creditor based on a contract. It is contended by the opposite party that deduction of mandatory crop insurance policy amount for the declared crops of the complainant is as per terms and condition accepted by the complainant at the time of sanctioning agricultural loan and legal right of the opposite party will not come under the purview of consumer dispute. As per Section 21 A of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 the settlement of amount and rate of interest cannot be challenged before this Commission. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Once the insurance premium deducted from his account is reversed into the account due to the vigilant interferences of the opposite party coupled with the co-operation of the complainant. The opposite party contended that the complainant did not close the loan account at the time of deduction of insurance premium. It is further stated that complainant reported non cultivation only for one season. The complainant did not give a non cultivation report and crop change statement for non deduction of policy amount from the account of the complainant. According to the opposite party, one seasonal report from the complainant cannot be taken for the whole loan period. The opposite party admitted the maintenance of accounts with the Bank of opposite party including agricultural loan account. It is stated that as long as the complainant kept alive an agricultural loan account, it is an obligation on the part of the complainant to report the changing of the crop on that season. Otherwise system controlled deduction for crop policy amount will be deducted from the account. The opposite party admitted the fact of petition lodged before police by the complainant.
4. The opposite party sent on intimation letter for debit of premium, but complainant was not ready to give crop change declaration for reversal of the premium. The signed application shows that the complainant was cultivating the crop banana, coming under PMFBY. As per the application, complainant is agreed to pay such insurance as per the T & C of loan agreement and premium is deducted for PMFBY in accordance with direction of Governments. The opposite party contended that the policy amount deduction happened solely due to non production of crop change declaration by the complainant. The deducted amount from the complainant’s account for premium was credited to A/c and policy was also issued. There was no illegal deduction of premium amount from the account of the complainant. According to the opposite party, the loan account was already closed and returned all documents to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled for any reliefs from the opposite party. So the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.
5. The complainant and the opposite party are filed affidavit and also produced documents. The documents produced by the complainant is marked as Ext.A1 to A6 documents. Ext.A1 document is the copy of statements of account No. 50200008631587 used with the bank of the opposite party. Ext. A2 document is the copy of petition dated 17/01/2019 submitted before Kottakkal Police Station by the complainant. Ext.A3 document is the copy of statement of account No.50100060897633 between 01/01/2014 to 01/05/2019 held with the bank of the opposite party. Ext. A4 document is the copy of PMFBY Operational guidelines issued by Department of Agriculture, Co-operation and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Krishibhavan New Delhi. Ext. A5 document is the copy of PMFBY Operational Guidelines (revised) issued by Department of Agriculture, Co-operation and Farmers Welfare Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Krishibhavan, New Delhi. Ext.A6 document is the notice undated issued by the opposite party demanding to pay Rs. 1,22,971/-. The opposite party did not file documents.
6. Heard both sides. Perused documents and affidavits. The Commission considered following points to adjudicate the dispute:-
Whether the opposite party had committed any kind of deficiency of services towards the complainant?
Relief and cost.
7. Point No.1 and 2:-
The complainant averred that he availed two agricultural loans of Rs. 15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen lakhs only) each from the opposite party. But later, the complainant discontinued the cultivation due to heavy financial loss and one of the above stated loan was also closed. According to the complainant, he promptly remitted instalments of loan and not doing cultivation. The complainant produced copy of two bank accounts held with the opposite party and those documents were marked as Ext. A1 and Ext. A3 documents respectively. The complainant alleged that the opposite party issued a notice dated 23/05/2019 to the complainant demanding to Rs. 1,22,971/- failing which revenue recovery proceedings would be initiated. The notice issued by the opposite party is marked as Ext.A6 document. The opposite party illegally collected Rs. 89,160.20/- from the account of the complainant without giving any information. The complainant repeatedly requested to refund the amount unauthorisedly collected, but the opposite party evaded from repayment saying frivolous excuses. It is also revealed in the complaint that the opposite party had collected Rs. 39,000/-(Rupees Thirty nine thousand only) and Rs. 97,518.97/-(Rupees Ninety seven thousand five hundred and eighteen and ninety seven paisa only) on two occasions from the accounts of the complainant under the pretext of premium for agricultural crops insurance coverage. But timely intervention of the complainant compelled the opposite party to the refund the above said amounts in the accounts of the complainant. The complainant produced copy of the petition filed before Kottakkal Police station to get back the illegal collection of money from his account and the petition is marked as Ext.A2 document.
8. The opposite party admitted the statement of the complainant that on two occasions there were withdrawal of money from the account of the complainant. The opposite party also admitted the accounts of the complainant held with them. According to the opposite party the deduction of mandatory crop insurance policy amount for the declared crops of the complainant is as per the terms and conditions accepted by the complainant at the time of sanctioning agricultural loans. Moreover, it is also alleged by the opposite party that the complainant was failed to report the changing of crop or a non cultivation report to the bank especially when the agricultural loan is alive. Otherwise system controlled deduction for the crop policy amount will be deducted from the amount.
9. Going through the evidences adduced by the complainant and the contention raised in the version and affidavit of the opposite party it can be seen that on two occasions the opposite party unauthorisedly collected some amounts from the accounts of the complainant held with the opposite party Bank. When dispute was arisen, the opposite party refunded the amount to the account of the complainant. According to the complainant due to heavy financial loss, he stopped cultivation and left farming field and on 01/06/2017 he informed his relinquishment from cultivation to the opposite party. Subsequently the complainant closed one agricultural loan. So in these circumstances, the opposite party failed to prove that the complainant is continuously engaged in cultivation. The non closure of an agricultural loan does not indicate that the complainant is engaged in cultivation. Moreover, the opposite party has not been able to produce any evidence to show that the complainant is doing cultivation. So in this situation, the opposite party cannot blame the system controlled deduction for crop policy amount from the account of the complainant. It is contended by the complainant that insurance of crops is not mandatory as the scheme and the complainant produced Ext.A4 and A5 documents to that aspect. The opposite party does not challenge the letter given by the complainant informing the stopping of cultivation by the complainant. The opposite party did not properly explained or denied the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party issued a notice to the complainant demanding to pay Rs. 1,22,971/- to the opposite party. This act of the opposite party including unauthorised withdrawal of amount and subsequent refund shows that the opposite party committed deficiency in service causing mental agony and hardship to the complainant. The complainant is stated in the affidavit that the remaining loan is closed and the opposite party handed over all documents deposited at the time availing loan. The opposite party also stated that the complainant already closed this loan. But in the affidavit, the complainant stated that the opposite party not refunded the amount of Rs. 89,160/- unauthorisedly withdrawn on 28/02/2019 from the account of the complainant. The opposite party did not adduce any evidence to show that the claim for Rs. 89,160/- is unwarranted and baseless especially in a situation where the loan is closed. Hence the Commission finds that the claim amount of Rs. 89,160/- made by the complainant is legally sustainable. So considering the above circumstances, the Commission declare that the complainant has succeeded in substantiating his contention raised in the complainant. So the Commission allows the complaint in the following manner:-
The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 89,160.20/-(Rupees Eighty nine thousand one hundred and sixty and twenty paisa only) to the complainant as the amount unauthorised withdrawal made on 28/01/2019.
The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the sufferings of the mental agony and hardship caused due to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant as the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order otherwise the entire amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of the order to till realisation.
Dated this 17th day of February, 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A4.
Ext. A1 : Documents is the copy of statements of account No. 50200008631587
used with the bank of the opposite party.
Ext. A2 : Document is the copy of petition dated 17/01/2019 submitted before
Kottakkal Police Station by the complainant .
Ext. A3 : Document is the copy of statement of account No.50100060897633
between 01/01/2014 to 01/05/2019 held with the bank of the opposite
party.
Ext. A4 : Document is the copy of PMFBY Operational guidelines issued by
Department of Agriculture, Co-operation and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of
Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Krishibhavan New Delhi.
Ext. A5: Document is the copy of PMFBY Operational Guidelines (revised) issued by
Department of Agriculture, Co-operation and Farmers Welfare Ministry of
Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Krishibhavan, New Delhi.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
