BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
Complaint case No.239 of 2016.
Date of Instt.: 09.09.2016.
Date of Decision: 18.07.2017.
Ram Singh son of Shri Birbal, resident of village Bhuthan Kalan, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.
...Complainant.
Versus
Oriental Bank of Commerce, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act No.40 of 1980, having its head office at E-Block, Harsha Bhawan, Conaught Place, New Delhi and one of its Branches at Fatehabad through its Branch Manager and Principal Officer of Dharmshala Road, Fatehabad, District Fatehabad.
...Opposite Party.
Complaint U/S 12 of the CP Act,1986
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President. Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member. Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present: Sh. Chander Bhan, Advocate for complainant. Sh. Sandeep Bhatia, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred as op).
2. Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that complainant owns and is in possession of 79 kanal 7 marlas of agricultural land in village Bhuthan Kalan, Tehsil and District Fatehabad. The complainant had availed cash credit loan facility by way of Oriental Green Card having KCC Account No.01465110004230 for Rs.3,50,000/- on 5.3.2005 from the op bank for cultivation of his land. This credit facility was later on enhanced to 4,50,000/- on 24.1.2009. That as security for the above said loan, the complainant had mortgaged his land in favour of op bank and had also executed the loan agreement in favour of the Bank. However, none of the loan documents gives any power/ authority to the op bank to get the crops insured at its own will as the op bank is not an agent of the complainant. It is further averred that on 10.8.2016, on perusal of the statement of the account of the above said loan amount, the complainant came to know that a sum of Rs.3853.44/- has been debited to his above said loan account on account of premium for crop insurance. On enquiry, the Branch Manager told that it is compulsory crop insurance which has been done on Govt. instructions… The complainant on 12.8.2016 asked the Branch Manager to credit the sum of Rs.3853.44 which has been wrongly debited to the loan account, but the op/ Branch Manager flatly refused to refund the amount of insurance premium. When the complainant demanded insurance policy from the op, he was informed in writing that it has not received the concerned policy so far. The act of getting the crop insurance done without any notice to the complainant and debiting the premium amount without his knowledge and consent amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of op bank which has caused great mental agony and harassment besides financial loss to the complainant for which he is entitled to compensation of Rs.20,000/- alongwith refund of Rs.3853.44 with interest and also litigation expenses from the op. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding cause of action; that complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer; suppression of material facts; maintainability and estoppel etc. On merits, it has been submitted that at the time of applying for advancement of loan, the complainant has executed the hypothecation agreement and other documents in favour of the bank and as per clause 2 of the agreement of hypothecation executed by the complainant for advancement of the loan, the complainant has given undertaking that “The Bank shall have the right to recover interest or any other tax or charges levied, if any, or to be levied at the rate specified by the Government of India or any authority for the time being in force, from time to time” and vide notification No.1305/01/2016-Credit II issued by Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Deptt. Of Agriculture, Corporation & Farmers welfare dated 1.7.2016 to all CMDs/MDs of all PSBs and other institutions, the respondent bank has been directed that “Loanee farmers to be covered on compulsory basis who have got sanctioned standard loan for notified crops in notified area irrespective of date of sanction/ disbursement” as mentioned in sub-para I of Pardhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna and similarly vide notification No.3309/Agri.II (1)-2006/10854 issued by Government of Haryana, it has been directed that “Loaning period (Loan sanctioned/ renewed) for Loanee Farmers on compulsory basis” and the Banks have been given “Cut-Off date for receipt of proposals of farmers/ debit for premium from farmers’ Accounts (Loanee and non-loanee) and as such in accordance with the instructions and directions of the Government, the amount of Rs.3853.44/- has been debited from the said loan account of the complainant on account of premium of crop insurance and this the crop of the complainant standing in the land for which the complainant has obtained the standard loan has been insured by the op bank from the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and as such the complainant is not competent to file the present complaint in view of undertaking given by the complainant himself. Hence, there is no illegality and deficiency in service on the part of op bank and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of application Ex.C1, copy of statement of account Ex.C2, certificate Ex.C3 and copy of Khasra girdawari Ex.C4. On the other hand, op produced affidavit of Sh. Girdhari Lal Barala, Branch Manager Ex.RW1/A, copy of notification No.13105/01/2016-Credit II of Government of India dated 1.7.2016 Annexure R1, copy of notification of Haryana Government dated 17.6.2016 Annexure R2, copy of minutes of Meeting of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) Annexure R3, copy of letter dated 2.8.2016 Annexure R4, copy of letter dated 14.7.2016 Annexure R5 and copy of agreement of hypothecation Annexure R6.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant in his arguments has contended that no notice was given to the complainant by the op before effectuating the crop insurance. The said insurance has been done and premium amount has been debited by the op without his knowledge and consent. The counsel further contended that as per Clause 11(a) of the Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Deptt. Notification dated 17.06.2016 proposal forms were to be collected/obtained by the bank. However, the proposal form was not got filled in from complainant by the Bank before getting the insurance done. Therefore the OP has not followed the clue procedure as provided in the above said notification. The counsel also contended that as per guidelines issued by R.B.I. no amount can be debited from the account without consent of the account-holder. The Op also did not take the trouble of verifying the area of crop actually sown before getting the same insured. The complainant has sown cotton in 24 kanal, paddy in 41 kanal 7 marla, bajra in 4 kanal, jawar in 2 kanal land whereas the whole area i.e. 79 kanal 7 marlas has been insured for the cotton crop. So the act of OP in debiting Rs.3853.44 from the account of complainant -amounts to deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. In support, of his case the counsel has relied upon authorities of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in cases titled as State Bank of India Vs. Vishnu Prasad & Ors. III (2014) CPJ 30 (NC) and Syndicate Bank Vs. Savitri Devi Foran Singh, I (2015) CPJ 510 (NC).
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has reiterated the version of the written statement and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
8. We have heard rival contentions of the parties. There is no dispute that complainant who owns and is in possession of 79 Kanal 7 Marlas of agricultural land in village Bhuthan Kalan, Tehsil and District Fatehabad had availed cash credit loan facility of Oriental Green Card having KCC account from the opposite party for Rs.3,50,000/- on 5.3.2005 and executed an agreement for hypothecation, copy of which is placed on file as Annexure R6. According to the complainant he got enhanced credit limit to Rs.4,50,000/- on 24.1.2009. From the copy of statement of account of complainant Ex.C2, it is evident that an amount of Rs.3853.44/- has been debited by the op bank on 2.8.2016 on account of PMFBY-Premium against which the complainant has filed the present complaint with the allegations that above said amount has been debited from his account wrongly and illegally without his consent/ proposal for insurance of his crop. The opposite party has placed on file scheme i.e. Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) launched by Government of India in 2016 and the clause 7 of the said scheme is reproduced as under:-
7. Farmers to be covered: All farmers including share croppers and tenant farmers growing notified crops in a notified area during the season who have insurable interest in the crop are eligible.
7.1 Compulsory Coverage: The enrolment under the scheme, subject to possession of insurable interest on the cultivation of the notified crop in the notified area, shall be compulsory for following categories of farmers:
7.1.1. Farmers in the notified area who possess a Crop Loan account/ KCC account (called as Loanee Farmers) to whom credit limit is sanctioned/ renewed for the notified crop during the crop season.
7.1.2. Such other farmers whom the Government may decide to include from time to time.
9. On the basis of the above said scheme of the Government of India, the Haryana Government also issued notification dated 17.6.2016 (copy Annexure R2) for implementation of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana in the State during Kharif 2016 and Rabi 2016-2017. As per clause 3 of the said notification of the Haryana Government, the area of the state was to be covered in three clusters and Fatehabad District was kept in cluster-III and insurance of the crops was to be done from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. for cluster-III i.e. for Fatehabad, Rohtak, Jhajjar, Mewat, Palwal, Panipat and Yamunanagar Districts. The clause 6 of the said notification regarding farmers to be covered says as under:-
a) All farmers including share-croppers and tenant farmers growing the notified crops in the IU will be eligible for coverage under the scheme.
b) All farmers availing Seasonal Agricultural Operations (SAO) loans from Financial Institutions (i.e. loanee farmers) for the notified crops would be covered compulsorily.
c) The scheme will be optional for the non-loanee farmers.
10. So, as per the scheme of Govt. of India and as per clause 6(b) of the above said notification of Haryana Govt., the insurance of the notified crops i.e. cotton, paddy, bajra, maize during Kharif 2016 and wheat, barley, mustard and gram crops during Rabi 2016-2017 for the loanee farmers was compulsory. Moreover, vide letter No.13015/01/2016- Credit II dated 1.7.2016 issued by Government of India, it has been clarified that loanee farmers to be covered on compulsory basis who have got sanctioned standard loan for notified crops in notified area irrespective of date of sanction/ disbursement. Further, in the Meeting held on 21.7.2016 regarding Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) convened by State Level Banker’s Committee, Haryana in the presence of Director, Agriculture & Farmers Welfare Department, Haryana it was clarified that there is no need for getting the Annexure ‘C’ signed from farmers before deduction of premium. This Annexure ‘C’ of notification has been formulated by incorporating all the fields prescribed in the insurance Portal of PMFBY designed by Govt. of India for facilitating the bankers for filling up all the fields of the portal. Even vide letter dated 14.7.2016 issued by Convener State Level Banker’s Committee, Haryana it has been directed that in case, claims have arisen during crop season then respective bank and its branches would be responsible to make payment of the admissible claims to loanee farmers who were deprived from Insurance cover to their crops. The allegation of complainant that op did not worry to verify the area of crop actually sown before getting the same insured as he has sown cotton in 24 kanal, rice in 41 kanal 7 marla, bajra in 4 kanal, jawar in 2 kanal whereas the whole area i.e. 79 Kanal 7 Marla has been insured for the cotton crop cannot be look into because in clause 13 regarding acreage discrepancy of the Haryana Govt. notification, it has been clarified that the insurance company and Banks will ensure that no case of ‘over insurance’ takes place. Any discrepancy in this regard will be rectified by the insurance company with the help of land records, bank records, proposals/ applications of farmers. So for the above said discrepancy regarding actually sowing of crops and insurance of cotton crops in whole land, the insurance company i.e. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. was liable and the name of said insurance company is very much mentioned in the notification of the Haryana Government. But the said insurance company has not been impleaded as a party in the present complaint by the complainant. Moreover as per para 11(e) of the above said scheme provides that loanee farmer can also change the name of the insured crop from the original crop submitted in the loan application under intimation to the insurance company. The authorities cited by learned counsel for complainant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. After issuance of Govt. notification, it is considered notice to all general public.
As the above said schemes of insurance of crops of loanee farmers have been launched by Government of India and is being implemented by the Government of Haryana, this Forum is not empowered to look into its validity or non validity and the op bank has acted perfectly in accordance with the instructions of the Government and as per directions of the State Level Banker’s Committee, Haryana to implement the said scheme, therefore, act of the bank cannot be held illegal or wrong. We are of the opinion that there is no deficiency or procedural lapse on the part of OP in implementing the policy/scheme framed by Government. If there is any grievance to the complainant regarding provisions of the policy of the Centre/ State Government, then he can challenge the policy matters of the Government before appropriate authority.
11. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with the liberty to complainant to approach the appropriate court. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM Dt.18.07.2017
(Raghbir Singh) President District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
(R.S.Panghal) (Ansuya Bishnoi) Member Member
