Date of filing:- 25/10/2017.
Date of Order:-11/05/2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 49 of 2017.
Premraj Tadi, S/o-Banshi Tadi, aged about 55(fifty five) years, R/o/ Vill. Ainlapali, P.o. Bandhpali P.S. Barpali Dist-Bargarh ..... ..... ...... Complainant.
-:V e r s u s:-
Secretary, Barpali Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society Ltd., Barpali, P.s. Barpali, Dist.-Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri R.K.Satpathy, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party :- Sri A.N.Mahapatra, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.11/05/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief facts of the Case;-
The case of the Complainant in brief is that he being a member of the Society vide Membership No. 1008, obtaining crop loan time to time and has insured his said crop without being defaulter any time, And that he has got his Land At Mouza – Ainlapali, vide Consolidation Khata No.75, for an area of Ac 10.80 Dc against which he has obtained a Loan for an amount of Rs.2,00,788/-(Rupees two lakh seven hundred eighty eight)only and the due date of the repayment was Dt.30.09.2016 so on Dt.14.12.2016 asked to supply him with a calculation sheet from the Opposite Party accordingly was supplied with a calculation sheet on Dt.14.12.2016 vide receipt No-21004 where from he found that the principal Loan amount was Rs.2,00,788/-(Rupees two lakh seven hundred eighty eight)only and an interest amounting to Rs.15,836/-(Rupees fifteen thousand eight hundred thirty six)only the grand total is 2,16,624/-(Rupees two lakh sixteen thousand six hundred twenty four)only and in the meantime an amount of Rs.56,542/-(Rupees fifty six thousand five hundred forty two)only and interest amount of Rs.38/-(Rupees thirty eight)only towards interest has been received from the insurance company so after deducting the same from the loan account of the Complainant an amount of Rs. 1,60,082/-(Rupees one lakh sixty thousand eighty two)only was due on him.
And the further case of the Complainant, at the time of disbursement of the loan amount to him during the Loan for Ravi Crop 2016 on Dt.14.12.2016 the Opposite Party has deducted an amount of Rs.60,000/-(Rupees sixty thousand)only against Rs.2,20,000/-(Rupees two lakh twenty thousand)only and further deducted an amount of Rs.3,355/-(Rupees three thousand three hundred fifty five)only towards interest and Rs.2,452/-(Rupees two thousand four hundred fifty two)only towards share, so in total has deducted Rs.54,193/-(Rupees fifty four thousand one hundred ninety three)only against the said amount of Rs. 60,000/-(Rupees sixty thousand)only against receipt No.21004 Dt.14.12.2016, issued by the Secretary.
Again in furtherance to his case during the year 2015-2016 the Opposite Party did not grant him with the P. Pass for sale of his paddy and on being asked his allegation is that he was demanded with Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only for the same consequent upon which he had to depend upon the open market to sale his paddy sustaining a loss of Rs.70,000/-(Rupees seventy thousand)only which he had raised before the A.R.C.S but to effect.
Furthermore his case is that the Govt. had declared insurance benefit @ 44% (forty five percent) for the Khariff Crop damage for the period of 2016, but on being enquired by him the Opposite Party informed him with different amount of insurance benefit against which he had knocked the door of the Collector also but to no effect, And that such actions of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiencies of service for which he has sustained a loss to the tune of Rs.1,01,730/-(Rupees one lakh one thousand seven hundred thirty)only as has been mentioned hereunder in different heads (a) Excess Interest Charges of Rs. 3,355/-(Rupees thirty thousand three hundred fifty five)only (b) Loss of Paddy sale due to non issuance of P. Pass amounting to Rs.70,000/-(Rupees seventy thousand)only (c) Differential insurance amount of Rs.3,375/-(Rupees three thousand three hundred seventy five)only amount of Khariff 2016 (d) Deficiencies in service & for harassment Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only (e) Legal Expenses Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only and has claimed the date of cause of action for the case on Dt.31.12.2015 and on subsequent dates, and to substantiate his case has relied on the following documents.
Copy of Pass Book.
Receipt No-21004 of Dt.14.12.2016.
Receipt No-60198 of 20.07.2017.
Copy of R.O.R. Consolidation Khata No-79 of Mouza Ainlapali.
Rent Receipt ( 2 No ).
Letter of Secretary Dt.5.04.2017.
Complaint Dt,11.09.2017 & 11.04.2014 ,27.10.2014.
Farmer Identity Card.
Grievence Cell application Dt.27.10.14.
Complaint Dt.31.12.2015.
Farmer Registration Status 16.1.2016.
Complaint Dt.22.09.16.& Dt Nil.
Letter No-105 of 12.1.16.of D.R.C.S
rent receipt ( 3 No ).
Copy of Bank Pass Book A/C 13172.
Having gone through the complaint, the documents and heard the counsel for the Complainant, prima facie, it seemed to be a genuine one, as such admitted the case and Notice was served upon the Opposite Party, in response the Opposite Party appeared and filed his version through his counsel denying the averments made by the Complainant, as hereunder.
The Opposite Party has challenged the status of the Complainant as, he is not being a consumer, rather a member of the society vide his Membership No-1008, by depositing an amount of Rs.22,000/-(Rupees twenty two thousand)only as his share, thus the case of the Complainant filed as a consumer is not maintainable in the Forum, as the dispute among them is redressed at the Co-operative department by the Registrar of the same, besides has also denied the averments of the Complainant that he was repaying the loan obtained by him, contending that the Complainant has obtained an amount of Rs.1,94,975/-(Rupees one lakh ninety four thousand nine hundred seventy five)only as loan and was supposed to repay the same amount of principal & interest before Dt.25.03.2016, which was subsequently extended up-to Dt.30.09.2016 by the Notification due to damage of crop, but has defaulted and as such he is to pay the principal amount along with an interest @ 2%(two percent) as per the Govt. guide line vide his Membership No. 1008, and has filed the same vide annexure-A,B,C,D,E. Furthermore he has again contended that the Complainant paid the entire amount of Rs.1,60,043/-(Rupees one lakh sixty thousand forty three)only on Dt.13.02.2017 along with the interest amount of Rs. 3,355/-(Rupees three thousand three hundred fifty five)only. Again has made further averments in his version that as he could not repay the dues on him within the stipulated period of time hence has been charged with Interest @ 12 % (twelve percent) for two months i.e. from Dt.14.12.2016 to Dt.14.02.2017 and has filed the statements of account of the same vide Annexure-D. And that the Complainant as on Dt.02.08.2016 was having an outstanding due on him for an amount of Rs.1,95,060/-(Rupees one lakh ninety five thousand sixty)only and has deposited an amount of Rs.5,728/-(Rupees five thousand seven hundred twenty eight)only towards Crop Insurance, hence as per his averment, the debit balance against the Complainant is Rs.2,00,788/-(Rupees two lakh seven hundred eighty eight)only till Dt. 30.09.2016.
In Further to his averments in his version has contended that the Complainant has got insurance benefit against the damage of his Kharif crop for the year 2015 out of which an amount of Rs.56,542.80/-(Rupees fifty six thousand five hundred forty two and eighty paise)only has been credited in his loan account and has claimed to be justified in deducting the same along with the deduction of further Rs.3,355/-(Rupees three thousand three hundred fifty five)only towards interest @ 2%(two percent) and an amount of Rs.2,452/-(Rupees two thousand four hundred fifty two)only as his share towards the enhancement of loan limit to Rs.2,20,000/-(Rupees two lakh twenty thousand)only and also is justified in deducting interest @ 12% (twelve percent) for two months i.e. From Dt.14.12.2016 to Dt.14 .02.2017.
Further he has denied to the Complaint case that the Complainant was not given with P. Pass for selling his Paddy Crop and that the Opposite Party demanded Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only for such pass to which he has raised before the A.R.C.S. but to no action as such has been bound to sale his crop in the open market with a low price sustaining loss for an amount of Rs.70,000/-(Rupees seventy thousand)only And has denied all other allegation with regard to the insurance amount and has claimed the case of the Complainant to be dismissed by the forum with an exemplary cost, And in support of his case has relied on Annexure-A,B,C,D and E.
Delving deep in to the Complaint, version and the respective documents, and after hearing their counsels we feel to case is to be decided on the following issues.
Whether the Complainant is a Consumer and whether the case is Maintainable in the Forum Under the Provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986 ?
Whether the Opposite Party is liable for commission of deficiencies in rendering service to the Complainant ?
Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief as has sought for by him ?
While considering the issues with regard to the question as to whether the Complainant is a Consumer and that the case is maintainable under Consumer Protection Act 1986. In this context the Parties are agreed in one point that the Complainant is a member of the Co-operative Society having his interest among all for the community and individual benefit too, and the care taker office bearer having being entrusted with, to work for the community and individual development by providing efficient service and more particularly because the member in this particular case is paying the share capital and in addition to that also paying individual charges while taking loan and also paying the interest upon the loan amount, in the particular point of time the Society is working as a mini Bank as such making entitled for the benefit of service for which is coming under the purview of a consumer as per the provision of the Act U/s 2 (d) even being a corporate body, is also having the responsibility towards the development and to render due service to each of such member as it has got a multiple acts and duty towards them as advanced by the counsels for the Complainant fortified with the decision reported in the CPR 714 (N.C.) in the year 2017 cited by him wherein it has been categorically explained that even being a member of a society is also a consumer being entitled for the service by such society in such similar case with the present case in hand and also being supported with a decision reported in 2006(supp-1 )in OLR 336, and hence in our very thoughtful consideration the decision cited by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party and the arguments placed on his behalf is not tenable in the present context of the case, hence in our view the Complainant is a Consumer and further to the case of settlement of dispute in the Consumer Forum keeping our vigilant view on the materials and arguments placed by the respective parties through their respective counsels with references to the section 68 & 9 of the O. C.S Act 1962 , it is seen from the materials available in the record the society in hand is also engaged in earning profit out of the share capital and also making profit out of the charges and interest being collected from the loan amount advanced by them to it’s member and in case of their default in making repayment in time charging more amount as penal interest which acts of the same amounts to a business transaction and such action of the society makes it’s member entitled to service from their end too and with regard to any dispute in between them deserved to be referred to the arbitration as mentioned hereunder, but at the same time such provision has not debarred the Consumer Protection Act 1986 from adjudicating the same in view of the provision of the Act U/s 3, which clearly defined as the same is in addition to any other act for the time being in force but not in derogation to the same, so it is an alternative measure of provision provided to the Consumer in addition to any other provision of Law provided for the time being in force, hence in view of such prevailing circumstances it can be safely opined that the case in hand is maintainable in the present Forum and accordingly the same is answered in favor of the Complainant.
Secondly while considering the issues with regard to the question as to whether the Opposite Party is deficient in providing service to the Complainant, having gone deep in to the materials available in the record and paying utmost importance to the arguments placed by the respective Learned Lawyers of the Parties, it came to our notice in view of the facts of our findings expressed in our foregoing paragraphs holding that the Complainant is a consumer with regard to his concerned transaction with the Opposite party it is evident from the averments made by the Complainant in his pleading, that he is a cultivator depending upon the procurement and sale of the same, but in this case it has been found that the complainant has asked for the procurement pass for his entire area of his Land for Ac18.80 dc to sale his paddy to the Government in the price fixed ,but the Opposite party has given the said pass for only Ac8.04 dc, the reason for denying for the other Ac10.76dc of Land has not been explained either way except denying the same and also the allegation of the Complainant with regard to the demand of gratification, the facts of which has been reported to their higher authority and the Collector too, even though it is not answered from their end, but has not been disproved by the Opposite Party in any manner, in furtherance to the allegation of the Complainant with regard to the imposition of @2%(two percent) interest on him even though he was prepared to repay the Loan amount before Dt.30.09.2016 but the Authority of the society declined to receive for which he had to approach the A.R.C.S, to which the Opposite Party has also not dealt with, for which is a burden on him in as much as the imposition of further amount of interest @ 12 %(twelve percent) in addition to the Complainant is an additional burden to which the Opposite Party has denied to have committed any illegalities as has relied on the Guide Line of the Orissa State Cooperative Bank Ltd and claimed to have rightly imposed the same but it is found from such Guide Line is specifically issued for the specific year i.e. 2010 -2011, and non mentioning the same to be applied for the years onwards having prospective effect or not, is not tenable in the eye of Law.
It has been further observed that the alleged Procurement Pass for which the Complainant is entitled but the same has been issued with him for only Ac8.04dc not for the entire land of Ac18.80 dc without assigning any reason for the same, so he has to depend on the open market in a low price as has been pleaded by the Complainant to which the Opposite Party could not Justify except the averments made by him denying the same and also the learned Advocate has raised question with authenticity as has not produced the name and address to whom such sale has been made, but out of all such narration of the case by both the Parties, and the averment made by the Opposite Party with a plea that the Govt. has declared for open sale of the Paddy to their department and has given an additional chance to sale their paddy, but the fact remains that the Opposite Party has denied to issue P.Pass for the entire Land of the Complainant unanswered without assigning any reason, which amounts to deficiencies of service coupled with the collection of @12 %(twelve percent) interest arbitrarily without having an up-to date circular or guide line to that effect for the ensuing period, hence in our considerate view the Opposite Party has committed deficiencies of service on their part and are liable thereto and as such the issue is answered in favor of the Complainant.
Finally while considering the issues with regard to the question as to whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief claimed for, having gone through the materials available in the record, and the written notes of arguments along with some citation of decision of Higher Forum placed by the Counsels for the respective Parties, but since we do not feel any ambiguity in the case as such did not feel it necessary to discuss in details of those citations but we have already discussed the details of the case with regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in our foregoing paragraphs and have already opined in favor of the Complainant, now it is obvious upon us to express our consensus view in assertive to the issues in hand in favor of the Complainant, hence our order follows.
O R D E R
Hence the Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.70,000/-(Rupees seventy thousand)only towards the differential amount of the paddy sold by the Complainant for non issuance of the P.Pass, an amount of Rs.3,355/-(Rupees three thousand three hundred fifty five)only in lieu of the excess amount of interest charged, an amount of Rs.3,375/-(Rupees three thousand three hundred seventy five)only towards the differential amount of insurance for Kharif-2016, and Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards the compensation for harassment for deficiencies of service and litigation expenses i.e. in total Rs.81,730/-(Rupess eighty one thousand seven hundred thirty)only to the Complainant within thirty days of receipt of the order in default of which the total awarded amount would accrue an interest @ 6 % (six percent) per annum till the actual realization of the total amount.
Accordingly the case is disposed off, in the result the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Party and the same being pronounced in the open Forum to-day i.e. on Dt.11.05.2018 .
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t I agree
(Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (w)
