Haryana

StateCommission

A/1443/2017

BANSI LAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

RADHEY SHYAM

06 Sep 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

                                                First appeal No.1443 of 2017

Date of the Institution: 29.11.2017

Date of Decision: 06.09.2018

 

Bansi Lal S/o Shri Surja Ram S/o Pat Ram, R/o Village Tibbi, Tehsil Tohana and Distt. Fatehabad.

                                                                             .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

Punjab National Bank, Branch Buna, Distt. Fatehabad through its Branch Manager and Principal Officer.

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member

 

Present:-    Mr.R.S.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Mr.Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for the respondent.

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          Delay of 80 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      It is alleged by the complainant that he was the owner of 91 kanal 2 marlas of agricultural land in village Tibbi, Tehsil Tohana, Distt. Fatehabad and was availed cash credit loan facility  by way of Kisan Credit Card having KCC account  No.0547008800004031 for Rs.1,25,000/- on 15.05.2003 from the opposite party-bank for cultivation of his land. The credit facility was later on enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- on 28.11.2006.  The complainant had mortgaged his land in favour of OP bank.  On  27.07.2016, he came to know that a sum of Rs.4416.74  was debited in his loan account on 27.07.2016 on account of premium of crop insurance. He requested the OP to refund the amount of Rs.4416.74, but, O.P. refused to refund the amount of insurance premium. The crop insurance was done by the O.P. illegally and without any notice to him and debiting the premium amount without his knowledge.  He has not received any policy from the O.P.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

3.      The complaint was resisted by the O.P.- bank by filing their written reply before the District Forum, in which, O.P. alleged that complainant executed the hypothecation agreement and other documents in favour of the bank and as per clause 5 of the agreement, the complainant has given undertaking that “The Borower(s) shall at all times, keep such items of security as are of insurable nature, insured against loss or damage by fire and other risk, as may be required by the bank and shall deliver to the bank all such policies.   Circular No.77/15 and memo No.6342 dated 02.08.2016 clearly mentioned that crops were to be covered  which was specified in para No.6 (b) for loanee farmers and non-loanee farmers  and the amount of Rs.4416.74 was debited as per the direction of the Government.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide order dated 02.08.2017.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      The argument have been advanced by Mr.R.S.Sharma the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Sikander Bakshi the learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire records of the appeal as well as District Forum record had been properly perused and examined.

7.      As per the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and the rival contentions raised on behalf of the respondent, it is true that cash credit loan facility by way of Kisan Credit Card was issued in the name of the appellant as a crop loan of Rs.5,00,000/- was advanced on 28.11.2016.  As per the policy formulated by the Government, the loan amount has to be insured for which a particular premium as per the rules and regulations is to be debited out of the account of the appellant, which is the basic ground  of the appellant that it cannot be debited out of his account without his consent. To the utter respect to the learned counsel for the appellant, this contention is not legally sustainable as it is the policy of the Government to insure the recovery of the loan amount and to avoid any unwarranted situation, the amount of the premium has to be debited out of the accounts of the scheme holder and as such, while dismissing the complaint, no illegality committed by the learned District forum, Fatehabad and resultantly appeal being devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

 

September  06th, 2018                                     Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                                                          Judicial Member                                                                                       Addl.Bench                 

S.K.