Orissa
StateCommission
A/28/2019
Branch Manager, Central Bank of India - Complainant(s)
Versus
Ramji Khamari - Opp.Party(s)
M/s. K.C. Satapathy & Assoc.
15 May 2020
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION,ODISHA,CUTTACK
FIRST APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2019
(From an order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the District Forum, Bargarh in C.C. No. 81 of 2017)
Branch Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Panimora Branch,
At/Po – Panimora, Ps – Sohela,
Dist – Bargarh – 768033
… Appellant
Vrs.
Ramji Khamari, aged about 62 years,
S/o Sukadev Khamari,
R/o Village – Nagaon, Po – Garvana,
Ps – Sohela, Dist – Bargarh, Odisha
… Respondent
____________
For the appellant : M/s K.C.Satapathy & Associates
For the respondent : Mr J.Sahu, Advocate
_____________
FIRST APPEAL NO. 29 OF 2019
(From an order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the District Forum, Bargarh in C.C. No. 83 of 2017)
Branch Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Panimora Branch,
At/Po – Panimora, Ps – Sohela,
Dist – Bargarh – 768033
… Appellant
Vrs.
Sankarlal Khamari, aged about 56 years,
S/o Late Premraj Khamari,
R/o Village – Nagaon, Po – Garvana,
Ps – Sohela, Dist – Bargarh, Odisha
… Respondent
____________
For the appellant : M/s K.C.Satapathy & Associates
For the respondent : Mr J.Sahu, Advocate
_____________
FIRST APPEAL NO. 30 OF 2019
(From an order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the District Forum, Bargarh in C.C. No. 77 of 2017)
Branch Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Panimora Branch,
At/Po – Panimora, Ps – Sohela,
Dist – Bargarh – 768033
… Appellant
Vrs.
Lalait Kumar Sahu, aged about 50 years,
S/o Jagyanapati Sahu,
R/o Village – Garvana, Po – Garvana,
Ps – Sohela, Dist – Bargarh, Odisha
… Respondent
____________
For the appellant : M/s K.C.Satapathy & Associates
For the respondent : Mr J.Sahu, Advocate
_____________
FIRST APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2019
(From an order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the District Forum, Bargarh in C.C. No. 82 of 2017)
Branch Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Panimora Branch,
At/Po – Panimora, Ps – Sohela,
Dist – Bargarh – 768033
… Appellant
Vrs.
Rupendra Sahu, aged about 40 years,
S/o Mangal Sahu,
R/o Village – Nagaon, Po – Garvana,
Ps – Sohela, Dist – Bargarh, Odisha
… Respondent
____________
For the appellant : M/s K.C.Satapathy & Associates
For the respondent : Mr J.Sahu, Advocate
_____________
FIRST APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2019
(From an order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the District Forum, Bargarh in C.C. No. 69 of 2017)
Branch Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Panimora Branch,
At/Po – Panimora, Ps – Sohela,
Dist – Bargarh – 768033
… Appellant
Vrs.
Brundabana Sahu, aged about 61 years,
S/o Late Sana @ Kusha Sahu,
R/o Village – Nagaon, Ps – Sohela,
Dist – Bargarh, Odisha
… Respondent
____________
For the appellant : M/s K.C.Satapathy & Associates
For the respondent : Mr J.Sahu, Advocate
_____________
FIRST APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2019
(From an order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the District Forum, Bargarh in C.C. No. 71 of 2017)
Branch Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Panimora Branch,
At/Po – Panimora, Ps – Sohela,
Dist – Bargarh – 768033
… Appellant
Vrs.
Chitrasen Khamari, aged about 53 years,
S/o Babaji Khamari,
R/o Village – Nagaon, Po – Garvana,
Ps – Sohela, Dist – Bargarh, Odisha
… Respondent
____________
For the appellant : M/s K.C.Satapathy & Associates
For the respondent : Mr J.Sahu, Advocate
_____________
FIRST APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2019
(From an order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the District Forum, Bargarh in C.C. No. 79 of 2017)
Branch Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Panimora Branch,
At/Po – Panimora, Ps – Sohela,
Dist – Bargarh – 768033
… Appellant
Vrs.
1. Narendra Padhan, aged about 50 years,
2. Daridra Padhan, aged about 48 years,
Both S/o Late Dutia Padhan,
R/o Village – Nagaon, Po – Garvana,
Ps – Sohela, Dist – Bargarh, Odisha
… Respondents
____________
For the appellant : M/s K.C.Satapathy & Associates
For the respondent : Mr J.Sahu, Advocate
_____________
FIRST APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2019
(From an order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the District Forum, Bargarh in C.C. No. 73 of 2017)
Branch Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Panimora Branch,
At/Po – Panimora, Ps – Sohela,
Dist – Bargarh – 768033
… Appellant
Vrs.
Dipti Padhan, aged about 50 years
W/o Lalit Padhan,
R/o Village – Nagaon, Po – Garvana,
Ps – Sohela, Dist – Bargarh, Odisha
… Respondent
____________
For the appellant : M/s K.C.Satapathy & Associates
For the respondent : Mr J.Sahu, Advocate
_____________
FIRST APPEAL NO. 36 OF 2019
(From an order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the District Forum, Bargarh in C.C. No. 75 of 2017)
Branch Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Panimora Branch,
At/Po – Panimora, Ps – Sohela,
Dist – Bargarh – 768033
… Appellant
Vrs.
Janek Padhan, aged about 60 years,
S/o Late Paramanda Padhan,
R/o Village – Nagaon, Po – Garvana,
Ps – Sohela, Dist – Bargarh, Odisha
… Respondent
____________
For the appellant : M/s K.C.Satapathy & Associates
For the respondent : Mr J.Sahu, Advocate
_____________
FIRST APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2019
(From an order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the District Forum, Bargarh in C.C. No. 80 of 2017)
Branch Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Panimora Branch,
At/Po – Panimora, Ps – Sohela,
Dist – Bargarh – 768033
… Appellant
Vrs.
Radhakanta Sahu,, aged about 40 years,
S/o Bhima Sahu,
R/o Village – Nagaon, Po – Garvana,
Ps – Sohela, Dist – Bargarh, Odisha
… Respondent
____________
For the appellant : M/s K.C.Satapathy & Associates
For the respondent : Mr J.Sahu, Advocate
_____________
FIRST APPEAL NO. 38 OF 2019
(From an order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the District Forum, Bargarh in C.C. No. 76 of 2017)
Branch Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Panimora Branch,
At/Po – Panimora, Ps – Sohela,
Dist – Bargarh – 768033
… Appellant
Vrs.
Krushna Chandra Pradhan, aged about 70 years,
S/o Late Ghasia Pradhan,
R/o Village – Garvana, Po – Garvana,
Ps – Sohela, Dist – Bargarh, Odisha
… Respondent
____________
For the appellant : M/s K.C.Satapathy & Associates
For the respondent : Mr J.Sahu, Advocate
_____________
FIRST APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2019
(From an order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the District Forum, Bargarh in C.C. No. 70 of 2017)
Branch Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Panimora Branch,
At/Po – Panimora, Ps – Sohela,
Dist – Bargarh – 768033
… Appellant
Vrs.
Chakamana Sahu, aged about 53 years,
S/o Sagar Sahu,
R/o Village – Nagaon, Po – Garvana,
Ps – Sohela, Dist – Bargarh, Odisha
… Respondent
___________
For the appellant : M/s K.C.Satapathy & Associates
For the respondent : Mr J.Sahu, Advocate
_____________
FIRST APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2019
(From an order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the District Forum, Bargarh in C.C. No. 78 of 2017)
Branch Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Panimora Branch,
At/Po – Panimora, Ps – Sohela,
Dist – Bargarh – 768033
… Appellant
Vrs.
Makardhwaja Sahu, aged about 50 years,
S/o Late Sanyasi Sahu,
R/o Village – Dumberpali, Po – Garvana,
Ps – Sohela, Dist – Bargarh, Odisha
… Respondent
____________
For the appellant : M/s K.C.Satapathy & Associates
For the respondent : Mr J.Sahu, Advocate
_____________
FIRST APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2019
(From an order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the District Forum, Bargarh in C.C. No. 72 of 2017)
Branch Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Panimora Branch,
At/Po – Panimora, Ps – Sohela,
Dist – Bargarh – 768033
… Appellant
Vrs.
Daktar Sahu, aged about 45 years,
S/o Akura Sahu,
R/o Village – Nagaon, Po – Garvana,
Ps – Sohela, Dist – Bargarh, Odisha
… Respondent
____________
For the appellant : M/s K.C.Satapathy & Associates
For the respondent : Mr J.Sahu, Advocate
_____________
FIRST APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2019
(From an order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the District Forum, Bargarh in C.C. No. 74 of 2017)
Branch Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Panimora Branch,
At/Po – Panimora, Ps – Sohela,
Dist – Bargarh – 768033
… Appellant
Vrs.
Gobinda Sahu, aged about 43 years,
S/o Late Rushi Sahu,
R/o Village – Garvana, Po – Garvana,
Ps – Sohela, Dist – Bargarh, Odisha
… Respondent
____________
For the appellant : M/s K.C.Satapathy & Associates
For the respondent : Mr J.Sahu, Advocate
P R E S E N T:
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE D.P.CHOUDHURY, PRESIDENT
AND
DR. S.MOHANTY, MEMBER
DATED THE 15th MAY, 2020
O R D E R
DR. D.P. CHOUDHURY J., PRESIDENT
All the complaints before the learned District Forum from which the appeals arise relate to identical cause of action which culminated in passing of similar orders. Although the complainants are different, but the OPs are same. Therefore, all the appeals were tagged and heard together. This common order shall govern the result of all the appeals.
2. These appeals are filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short). Parties hereinafter were arrayed as the complainants and OPs as per their nomenclature before the learned District Forum.
FACTS
3. The case of the complainants in brief is that the complainants have got banking business with the OP vide Loan Account Nos. 2243331113 in C.C.No. 81 of 2017, 2243331340 in C.C.No. 83 of 2017, 2243331146 in C.C.No. 77 of 2017, 2243310976 in C.C.No. 82 of 2017, 2243331271 in C.C.No. 69 of 2017, 2243331044 in C.C.No. 71 of 2017, 2243332333 in C.C.No. 79 of 2017, 2243331714 in C.C.No. 73 of 2017, 2243332208 in C.C.No. 75 of 2017, 2243332377 in C.C.No. 80 of 2017, 2243331306 in C.C.No. 76 of 2017, 2243332366 in C.C.No. 70 of 2017, 2243331022 in C.C.No. 78 of 2017, 16/04 in C.C.No. 72 of 2017, 2243331351 in C.C.No. 74 of 2017 respectively. It is alleged inter alia that Government of India has implemented Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (in short PMFBY) Scheme for paddy crops and other crops for providing financial security to the farmers to mitigate the losses at the time of distresses. As per the guidelines of such Scheme every farmer who has availed agricultural loan is compulsorily required to be covered under such crop insurance scheme. According to the complainants, it is the duty of the OP to ensure coverage of the crops of those farmers under the crop insurance scheme who have availed the crop loans. The complainants have availed the crop loans for their respective lands and the OP has financed accordingly of different amount to different complainants during the year 2016 – 2017. Since there was damage to the crops to the extent of 82.84% in Garvana Gram Panchayat i.e. the area of cultivation of the complainants for Kharif – 2016 season in respect of paddy crops, the complainants were supposed to avail crop insurance compensation by debiting the premiums from their loan accounts by the OP to pay the same to the Insurance Company. In 2017, the OP allegedly did not deduct the premium from the accounts of the complainants and remit the same to the Insurance Company for which they were deprived of availing such benefits of the Scheme. When the complainants approached the OP, the Branch Manager of the OP Bank stated that since predecessors have failed to deduct the premiums, the crop insurance compensations were not made available to them. The complainants alleged that due to deficiency in service of the OP Bank, they are deprived of receiving the crop insurance amount for which they approached the learned District Forum with prayer to direct the OP to pay the required amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from September, 2017 onwards till actual payment is made.
4. The OP entered appearance and filed the written version. It is the case of the OP that the District Forum have no jurisdiction as they never promised nor advised to cover the crops of the complainants at any point of time for which the complainants are not ‘consumers’ under the provisions of the Act. Further, it is averred that no cause of action arose for filing the complaints. The OP denied all the allegations made in the complaints. It is the case of the OPs that there was such PMFBY Scheme but under the Scheme the complainants have to approach the OP Bank to avail the loan or renew their loan so that the crops in question can be insured and the loanees would avail the benefits of the scheme. In the instant case, the complainants had availed the loan earlier and the crops were insured regularly. But in the year in question, the complainants had not availed the loans and also OPs were not requested for renewal of earlier loans or they had paid the instalments of earlier loans for which the complainants are not regular loanees. As such, the OP Bank did not deduct the insurance premiums and complainants are not entitled to avail any insurance benefits. On the whole, it is the case of the OP Bank that it is the duty of the complainants to give consent to the OP Bank to deduct the premiums and remit the same to the concerned Insurance Company so that the crops in the year in question can be insured and in the event of damage of the same, the complainants would be eligible to avail the benefits of crop insurance scheme. As such, the OP prayed to dismiss the complaints.
DECISION OF DISTRICT FORUM
5. The learned District Forum after narrating the case of the complainants and the OP framed two issues.
i) Whether the complainants are consumers of the opposite party and whether deficiency of service has been committed by the opposite party?
ii) Whether the complainants are entitled to the relief sought for by them?
The learned District Forum after analysing the case of both parties came to a conclusion that the complainants are loanees before the OP Bank and for every operation with the Bank, the Bank is to receive the service charges in addition to interest over the loan amount paid by the complainants. So the complainants are consumers. It is also held by the learned District Forum that under the PMFBY Scheme the complainants being the loanees farmers, their crops would be covered compulsorily under such scheme. Even if there is no balance in the account of such farmers to deduct the premiums, it is the duty and responsibility of the Bank to sanction further loan amount required for payment of insurance premiums and to remit the same to the concerned Insurance Company to enable the farmers to get the advantage of the scheme but the OPs have not deducted the premium amount from the loan amount already availed by the complainants. On the other hand, the OPs have not taken care to deposit the premium amount which is nothing but negligence on the part of the OPs and the same amounts to deficiency in service. As such, the complainants are entitled for the reliefs sought for and finally directed the OPs to pay the necessary amount with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the cases till the date of the order to the complainants besides to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to each of the complainants for their mental and financial agony and also awarded litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to each of the complainants. It is also held that failing to abide by such order, the entire amount shall be payable with interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of actual payment by the OPs Bank to the complainants.
SUBMISSIONS
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of the learned District Forum is illegal, illogical and not valid in law. According to him, the learned District Forum have erred in law by not appreciating the facts and law involved in this case. To avail the benefit of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, the farmers must have given their consent/proposal to debit the premium amount from their respective loan accounts. But in the instant case, no consent was given by the complainants to deduct the premiums for which the crops were not insured. Learned District Forum has failed to appreciate such norms. Even not a single document was filed on behalf of the complainants to substantiate their allegations in the complaint petitions about the quantum of damage and loss assessed by the surveyor but the learned District Forum having lost sight of this aspect have come to a wrong conclusion fixing the liability on the OP Bank. The impugned order also does not disclose to have understood the principle of operation of the loan account by the Banker. It has lost sight of Chapter – XXIV (Point 6) of the operational guidelines of PMFBY where there are certain roles and responsibilities of the loanees farmers and in the instant case, the complainants having not performed their roles and responsibilities, the decision of the learned District Forum observing that there is deficiency in service by the OP is untenable.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that learned District Forum have erred in law accepting the calculation as made in the complaints whereas there is no evidence led by the complainants to substantiate the calculations. According to him, the District Forum having not considered the pleading of the OP and the documents filed by them have passed illegal order in question in favour of the complainants. The learned District Forum have failed to appreciate that the OP did neither promised nor advised to insure the crops of the complainants at any point of time for which the complaints are not maintainable. On the whole, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order being vitiated in law should be set aside.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned orders and further submitted that the appellants have tried to cover up their lacuna although they have got deficiency in service by not deducting the premiums from their loan accounts for availablement of the crop insurance compensation. According to him, the complainants have sustained huge loss in the crops as there was drought. The Scheme clearly shows that the OP Bank being the Nodal Bank has to deduct the premiums from the loan accounts of the complainants and submit the same before the concerned Insurance Company so as to make good loss of the sustained damage and the OP having not deducted the premiums from the complainants accounts in spite of request are guilty of deficiency in service. Therefore, the learned District Forum passed the impugned orders rightly in their favour by directing the OPs to pay such amount as per the calculation annexed to the complaints and to pay compensation with litigation cost to the complainants.
POINTS FOR DISCUSSION
9. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both parties, it is pertinent to frame two points for discussion.
i) Whether the complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of the OPs Bank so as to allow the reliefs prayed for?
ii) Whether the complaint petitions are maintainable?
DISCUSSIONS
Point No.1
10. It is the case of the complainants that for availing crop loans, they opened crop loan accounts and got the account numbers. It is also the case of the complainants that as per the guidelines of PMFBY, they are entitled to avail the agricultural loans being compulsorily covered and it is the duty of the OP Bank to deduct the premium amount to ensure the coverage of the crops of the farmers who have availed the crop loans. During 2016 – 2017 complainants have availed the crop loans and requested the OP Bank to deduct the premiums for covering their corps so as to award compensation under PMFBY Scheme. They have found that in the same year, there was a draught and they have sustained damage to the paddy crops. In the last part of September, when they found, they are not paid the insurance compensation, they approached the OP Manager of the Bank but the Manager admitted fault of not deducting the premiums and consequently, the loss caused to the complainants.
11. On the other hand, the OP has denied the entire allegations and it is their case that the complainants have not availed any loan in the session 2016 – 2017 although they had availed loan in the earlier occasion and crops were insured at regular basis. Further, it is the plea of the OP that since the complainants have neither renewed the earlier loans nor paid the dues, they are not taken as regular loanees for the year 2016 – 2017 so as to insure the crops.
12. It is requirement of Section - 14 of the Act that the dispute should be resolved by going through the evidence adduced by both the parties. It is the case of the appellant that the complainants have not adduced any evidence to substantiate their claims. The complainants only filed the xerox copies of their statement of accounts and the PMFBY guidelines. Guidelines since issued by the Government are admitted by both the parties for availablement of such benefit of the scheme and it is also admitted by the OP that the complainants have opened the accounts in their Bank. The statements of accounts of the complainants have also been filed by the learned counsel for the OP. Since all the documents are public documents, the question of not adducing any evidence by the OP to substantiate their right does not surface.
13. With regard to the statements of accounts being maintained in due course of business by the Bank in respect of the complainants are actually to be perused to find out whether the allegations of the complainants are correct or not. Such statements of accounts have not been unfortunately discussed by the learned District Forum. Had it been discussed, the truth could have been revealed. Rather the statements of accounts of the complainants do not show that in 2016 – 2017 financial year the complainants have any crop loans obtained but it appears from the statements of accounts that during 2015 - 16 the premiums had been deducted in the month of October, 2015. At the same time, the statements of accounts shows that in the month of June, 2017, the crop loans again had been taken and in the month of July, 2017, the premiums have also been deducted from their loan accounts for payment to the Insurance Company. Thus, it appears that the complainants are loanees earlier to 2016-17 and also loanees during the year 2017-18. When there is no any crop loans obtained during 2016-17 as per statements of accounts, the allegation of the complainants that they have obtained crop loans of 2016-17 is not proved. As it appears from the documents that complainants have availed good amount of loan in the 3rd quarter of 2016 – 17 and also availed loan in 1st quarter of 2017 – 18, question of asking for any loan in 2016 – 17 appears to be improbable one.
14. On the other hand, the guideline shows that State Government for the first time accepted PMFBY in 2016. The notification of the State Government dated 12.4.2016 shows that for Kharif 2016 crop season, the guideline is issued by the Government of Odisha, Cooperation Department. It is clear from that guideline that the loanees farmers are covered under compulsory basis to avail such benefits. The loan should be sanctioned in between 1st April to 31st July, 2016. Not only this but also the agency who is to implement the scheme are Banks and Insurance Companies inasmuch as the premiums purportedly to be deducted from the crop loans and the same would be deposited with the concerned Insurance Companies for release of compensation to the concerned farmers but the crucial point is that there should be damage to the concerned crops. The notification is annexed with the name of certain districts and the present complainants are covered by that. Moreover, the guidelines of PMFBY of Central Government show that all farmers growing notified crops in a notified area during the season, who have insurable interest in the crops, are eligible to get the coverage. The statements of accounts of the Bank shows that prior to the year 2016 for the obvious reasons the complainants have already availed the loans and also paid the premiums just in the last part of 2015 and when they got the loans in 2017 middle part, the crop insurance compensation must have been released in between two period to cover up their losses, for that the question of complainants for asking the OP Bank to deduct the premiums during 2016-17 is out of bound. Thus, the complainants are found to have failed to prove that the OPs have failed to perform the duty in accordance with Banking Rules.
15. It is true that the crop insurance compensation is to be paid to the loanees farmers who are need of the money for the loss in the crops due to drought or any natural calamities. In 2016-17, admittedly, the crops were suffered from drought. It is laid at the Bar that many farmers in Bargarh district also suffered and some of them committed suicide due to financial crunch. If the procedural aspect is not well maintained, the beneficiary is not supposed to get benefit of the crop insurance. In the instant case, the complainants have not at all availed any loan for the session in question but fact that their crop loans which have been obtained earlier has been continuing by withdrawing money from the loan accounts time to time by using ATM card as per the statements of accounts. Therefore, the possibility of not asking further loan in the year 2016-17 by the complainants to the OP Bank is there. Moreover, just after 2016-17, the crop loans have made available to the concerned complainants and also premiums have also been deducted as stated earlier and at no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the OPs have made deficiency in service.
16. The learned District Forum while evaluating the materials on record have only recorded the following:-
“xxx xxx xxx
It is the duty and responsibility of the Nodal Bank to sanction further loan amount required for the payment of the premium amount and to remit the same to the concerned insurance company to enable the farmer to take the advantage of such scheme but in this case in hand though it has been admitted by the opposite party that such scheme is in operation and in furtherance the complainant has inquired about the same from the opposite party has not taken care of to deposit the premium amount which is nothing but the negligence on his part which amounts to deficiencies of service for which he is ultimately liable to compensate to the complainant.”
17. The said observation of the learned District Forum does not disclose about appreciation of any material with regard to statements of accounts or any other evidence practically required to be assessed by the District Forum. It must be remembered that the avowed object of the Act is to protect the interest of the consumers but it should be acted legally but not by any sort of emotional flavour. Thus, we are constrained to hold that the observations made by the learned District Forum that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP is based on no legal evidence. Therefore, we are of the view that point No.1 is decided against the complainants.
18. Point No.2
The question arises whether the complaints are maintainable? The word ‘deficiency’ as defined in the Act is as follows:-
“xxx xxx xxx
(g) “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.”
The definition of ‘consumer’ so far service is concerned is also defined below:-
“xxx xxx xxx
(d) “consumer” means any person who -
xxx xxx xxx
(ii) (hires or avails of) any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose;
(Explanation – For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;”
Section 2(1)(o) of the Act defines service as hereunder:-
“service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service;”
19. On conjoint reading of the aforesaid definitions, it is clear to observe that any beneficiary of banking service if has suffered due to deficiency of such service as defined above; can maintain a complaint before the Consumer Forum. On the other hand, the definitions are so wide and expanded that the benefit of the PMFBY where the premium is to be paid by the Nodal Bank to the Insurance Company so as to avail the benefit by the loanee, for that the Nodal Bank used to deduct service charges. Thus, it cannot be said that the Bank is serving free of any charges. Therefore, the general plea of the appellant that the respondents are not consumers for the reasons that no consideration has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose is not tenable. The discussion on the plea of the OPs is made loudly for academic purpose. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present cases, when deficiency in service of OPs are not proved, the complaints are not maintainable. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
CONCLUSION
20. It is revealed from the impugned orders that the District Forum have accepted the prayer of the complainants to pay the amount calculated by them. It must be remembered that procedure for payment of crop insurance compensation is dependent upon the calculations made by the Insurance Company, Nodal Bank is only to deduct the premium and remit same to the concerned Insurance Company who is to make survey to pay the concerned compensation amount. When in the instant case, the Insurance Company concerned and District Magistrate are not made parties and the OP Bank who is only to deduct the premium is made party and there is no any calculation sheets filed by the complainants to show under which provisions of law such calculations are made, the reliefs granted on the basis of the complainants’ prayer in the complaints are absolutely imaginary and without any legal sanction. It should be borne in mind that any relief to be granted must be based on legal evidence adduced and text of law supporting it. So the orders of the learned District Forum are otherwise found to be unsustainable under law.
21. In view of the above, we are constrained to hold that the impugned orders passed by the learned District Forum are liable to be set aside and we do so.
Accordingly, the appeals are allowed.
Free copy of this order be supplied to both the parties. Statutory dues, if any, be refunded to the appellants.
DFRs be sent back forthwith.
..............................
(Dr.D.P.Choudhury J) President
.....................
(Dr.S.Mohanty) Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.