Orissa

Jajapur

CC/74/2016

Binod Bihari Parida - Complainant(s)

Versus

Radha Mohan Jena - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jul 2017

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 3rd day of July,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.74 of 2016

Binod Bihari Parida  S/O Baidhar parida

At. Patapur, P.O.Jayantara

P.S.Mangalpur , Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.Radha Mohan Jena, Ex-Branch Manager,

Odisha Gramya Bank, Dasarathpur ,At Present: Jenapur Branch,

Dt .Jajpur.

2.Chairman Odisha Gramya Bank, Gandamunda, P.O. Khandagiri,

Bhubaneswar, Dt.Khurda.

                                                                                                                          ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

For the Complainant:                         Self

For the Opp.Party :                            Sri G.Ch. Panda, Miss B.R.Rout, Advocates.

                                                                                                     Date of order:   03. 07.2017.

 

MISS  SMITA RAY , LADY   MEMBER .

Deficiency in banking service is the grievance of the complainant.

            The facts as stated in the complaint petition shortly are that the petitioner being an Agriculturist of Dasarathpur  G.P within the Dist of Jajpur had taken a KCC loan of Rs.34,000/- from the O.P (Orisha Gramya Bank,Dasarathpur Branch) for agricultural purpose . It is stated by the petitioner that the O.P had sanctioned the loan of Rs. 34,000/ in favour of him under KCC loan bearing A//C No.40050510004145 on 01.08.2014 and out of  the sanction amount of Rs. 34,000/- the O.P kept Rs.765/ as Insurance premium .Subsequently due to crop loss owing to  natural calamities  the farmers of  Dasarathpur G.P are entitled to  get 61% Insurance claim since the crops were partly damaged  .On the enquiry it is ascertained that the O.P has not  deposited the Insurance premium of the petitioner for which the petitioner  has been debarred from getting  Insurance claim though  the crops has been partly damaged. In such situation the petitioner  served a written application to the Chariman of the O.P on 03.03.16 and 07.04.16 but after receipt of the said application the O.P remained silent .Thereafter the petitioner obtaining information under RTI Act dt.18.07.16  has filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the O.P make payment of 61%  Insurance claim of  Rs.20,740/- and award  compensation of Rs.5,000/- .

            After notice the O.P appeared through their learned advocate and filed their written version taking  the following stands:-

            1.The complaint petition is false, frivolous, vexatious and concocted ,hence not maintainable in law.

            2.The complaint petition is also not maintainable on the grounds mentioned infra.

            (i)The complainant has admittedly availed the impugned loan on 01.08.2014 and the cause of action arose from the said date. In the touch stone of the same the complaint petition ought to have filed within two years from the date of cause of action viz. complaint should have been filed on or before 01.08.2016 but the instant complaint petition has been filed on 02.01.2017 much after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period and hence not maintainable.

(II) It has been maintained that the impugned loan has been availed for “Khariff paddy loan” but from the facts borne out from the records it is revealed that the loan in fact was availed fro High Yield vegetable cultivation. The relevant loan application which reveals that the loan was availed from High Yield vegetables . Thus the complainant has not only furnished the misleading facts and also resorting to such falsehood and has tried to get undue advantage of the Insurance claim.

(III)In the entire complaint petition there is no whisper about the loan being availed for earning livelihood which is presumption can be drawn that the loan was availed for earning profit and thereby the complainant cannot be termed as a consumer and in the said touché stone but amenable to the provision of C.P. Act and as a natural corollary can not avail the relief under the C.P.Act.

(iv) A plain perusal of the complaint petition would reveal that there is no averment as regards to the cause of action and contention of such cause of action is conspicuously absent in the entire complaint petition.

3.That a careful examination of the entire complaint petition would reveal that there is even no whisper of deficiency of service ascribed against the O.P Bank. And it is fairly settled that in the absence of deficiency of service, the complaint petition is not maintainable.

            The complainant vide his application dt.15.10.2012 wanted to avail the loan fro High yielding vegetable cultivation. After availing the said loan the complainant wanted to renew the loan on dt.01.08.2014 .And at this point of time there was an inadvertent mistake was crept in and the premium debited to the loan account of the complainant. However later on detection that the instant loan being not eligible for Insurance coverage under NAIS (National Agriculture Insurance Scheme) .The said amount of Rs.765/- along with eligible interest at the S.B rate was credited to the account of the complainant .

            Now on the non receipt of the insurance amount the complainant with oblique motive has filed the instant complaint petition and liable to be dismissed against the O.P. with cost.

            Owing to the above contradicting views,  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  so far as the cause of  action arises for the present dispute ?

Issue No.3

            Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P, so far as the  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 O.P debited the premium amount of insurance on 11.09.14 for which the complainant came to know that  his crops was not insured by the O.P  from  the RTI reply on dt. 18.07.16  and served a registered  notice to the Chairman of the O.P regarding clarification of the insurance claim on dt. 03.03.16   and 07.04.16 .Thereafter the complainant has filed the present dispute against the O.P on dt.27.09.16 .  As such the dispute is within the period of limitation as per section 24 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 .”

Since the cause of action arises for filing the present dispute arises on dt.18.07.16 when the petitioner knows from RTI reply that his crops was not insured.

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 complainant is entitled for any relief as prayed in his complaint petition.

            It is undisputed fact that the O.P has sanctioned a KCC loan  in favor of the complainant and  as against the above cited loan the O.P debited Rs.765/- on 01.08.14  from the loan account for the purpose of Insurance premium .Further as per term and condition of the KCC loan the insurance is mandatory which  must be done by the O.P .In the written version  the O.P has taken the plea that due to inadvertence  Insurance Premium was deducted from the loan account of the complainant but the said premium was not accepted since  complainant  was not covered  under National agricultural Insurance scheme Govt. of India because he has applied the KCC loan for High yielding vegetable cultivation which is not a notified crop .The O.P also has taken the plea that deduction of

Insurance premium was by mistake and the same has already  been credited to the loan account of the complainant with interest. In such situation we verified the statement of loan account of the complainant filed from the side of the O.P it is reflected that the O.P has  returned  the premium amount with interest  i.e after receipt of notice from the counseling center, DCDRF ,Jajpur which is after   lapse of 24 months .On the other hand we have no hesitation to point out that under what circumstances they debited the premium amount for  crop Insurance  and subsequently credited the same  is nothing but after thought . Was it not the duty of O.P to inform the complainant .  In case the premium was not accepted by National Agricultural Insurance Scheme  Govt. of India . But the O.P without intimating the complainant  immediately  or  credited the premium amount along with interest to the loan account , for which  the complainant issued a Regd. application to the Chairman of the O.P regarding clarification of crop insurance but the O.P  slept over the matter . Hence, the complainant 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 .

O R D E R

The dispute is allowed against the O.P on contest . The O.P is directed to pay the Insurance claim against the kharif crops for the year of 2014 as per term and condition of the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme Govt. of India as declared  Rabi crop loss against the complainant G.P  within one month after receipt of this order , after deducting the premium amount along with interest which has already returned by the O.P to the complainant , failing which the awarded amount will carry 9% interest from the date of filing of the present dispute till its realization .The above amount shall be recovered by the authority of the O.P from the pocket of the concerned officer who has anctioned the loan and debited the insurance premium amount as per observation of Hon’ble Supreme court reported in 1993(3)CPJ-7-vide para-19-(Lucknow Development Authority Vrs.M.K.Gupta ) .                                                             .

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 3rd day of July,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.