Orissa

Jajapur

CC/77/2020

Sri Debendra Das. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Secretary Cuttack Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Oct 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,JAJPUR
Jajpur Town ,Behind Sanskruti Bhawa n (Opposite of Jajapur Town Head Post office),At ,P.o, Dist-Jajapur,PIN-755001,ODISHA
 
Complaint Case No. CC/77/2020
( Date of Filing : 12 Oct 2020 )
 
1. Sri Debendra Das.
S/O-Damodar Das,At-Palada,P.O-Rambag,Dist -Jajpur.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Secretary Cuttack Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd.
At-Nimchoudi,Dist-Cuttack.
2. Branch Manager,Cuttack Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd,Dasarathpur Branch.
At/P.O-Dasarathpur,Dist-Jajpur
3. M.D.General Manager,Oriental ,Insurance Company -Head Office.
At/P.O-Sahid Nagar,Bhubaneswar,Dist-Khurda.
4. Secretary Taliha Samabaya Samity.
At-Taliha,P.O-Rambag,Dist-Jajpur.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Pitabas Mohanty PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MS. Miss Smita Ray MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 29 Oct 2021
Final Order / Judgement

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Pitabas Mohanty, Member

                                                                             2. Miss Smita  Ray, Member,(w)       

                                                   Dated the 29th day of October,2021.

                                                      C.C.Case No.  77  of 2020

Sri  Debendra Das  , S/O Damodar Das    

At. Palada  , P.O. Nahapada  ,

Dist.Jajpur.                                                                                                                    …………….    .Complainant .                                                                         

                          (Versus)

  1. Secretary Cuttack Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, At. Nimchoudi ,  

               Dist.Cuttack.

  1.  Cuttack Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, Dasarathpur branch ,At/P.O. Dasarathpur

        Branch, At/P.O/ Dasarathpur ,Dist.Jajpur

  1. M.D.General Manager,Oriental Insurance Company, Head office,At/P.O.Sahid Nagar

Bhubaneswar,Dist. Khurda.

  1. Secretary Taliha Samabaya Samity, At.Taliha ,P.O.Rambag,Dist.Jajpur  

 

                                                                                                                                                           ………………..Opp.Party.                                                                                                                                                                                                               

For the Complainant:                                     Sri  R.K.Ghadei , Sri R.N. Dhal,  Advocate 

For the Opp.Party   : 1  and 2                         Sri  S.R.Subudhi,Advocate

For the Opp.parties No.3                                Sri  A.K.Panda, Advocate .

For the Opp.Parties No.4                                Sri P.K.Daspattnaik, Advocate.                        

                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                         Date of order:  29. 10. 2021.

SHRI  PITABAS  MOHANTY,   PRESIDING  M E M B E R    .

The petitioner being the kharif  agriculturist  has filed the present dispute against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair Trade practice due to non-receipt of the Insurance claim against the damaged crop occurred in the year 2019-20 .

                The facts shortly are that the petitioner being the agriculturist of kharif crop availed a loan from O.P.no.1 through  O.P.no.2 and 4 . At the time of sanctioning   the loan the O.P.no.1 and 2  has deducted Rs. 1878/-  as Insurance premium from the loan of the petitioner vide loan A/C No.16299 . Subsequently due to flood in the year 2019-20 the crop of the petitioner damaged. Accordingly the petitioner intimated O.P.no.2 since the other farmers have already received the Insurance claim .But it is the matter of great regret that the O.P.no.1 intimated  the petitioner that his name does not find place in the Insurance payment list. That the petitioner is a consumer who is paying interest for the loan availed by him .Similarly at the time of availing the loan the O.P.no.1, 2 and O.P.no.4   has deducted the Insurance premium  from the loan amount  of the petitioner to be deposited in the Insurance company only to cover up the risk of kharif crop in case the kharif crop will be damaged during the period 2019-20 and in the present case  since the kharif crop of the petitioner has been damaged due to flood , the O.ps are liable to pay the insurance claim to the petitioner . Accordingly due to non- receipt of the Insurance claim against the damaged crop occurred in the year 2019-20  the petitioner has filed the present dispute against the O.Ps with the prayer to direct the O.Ps to pay the Insurance claim to the extent declared by the Govt  Palada G.P as well as a compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and litigation expenses may be awarded in favour of the petitioner .

                There are 4 nos of O.ps  who after appearance have filed the written version separately  in support of their defence.

                In the written version the O.P.no.1 and 2  have stated that after collection of premium amount from the loan of the petitioner the said premium amount of Insurance has been deposited in the Insurance company (o.P.no.3)  towards the future risk of kharif crop of the petitioner for the year 2019-20. As against such contention from the side of the O.p.no.1 and 2  , the O.P.no.3 Insurance company is stating that no Insurance premium of the petitioner has been deposited in the Insurance company nor the kharif crop of the petitioner for the year 2019-20 has not been insured in the Insurance company . Further it is stated by O.P.no.3 that the O.p.no.1 and 2 should file the relevant documents in case the O.p.no.1 and 2 have deposited the Insurance premium of the petitioner in respect of kharif crop for the year 2019-20.

Similarly the O.p.no.4 has filed the written version stating that the Insurance premium of the petitioner in respect of the kharif crops for the year 2019-20 has been deposited in the Insurance company through O.P.no.1 and 2.

                In view of the contradicting views of both the parties we heard the argument from both the sides  and after perusal of the record in details we are inclined to dispose of the dispute as per our observation below:-

  1. Admittedly the petitioner is a bonafide member of Taliha  co-operative society who has availed kharif loan for 2019-20 amounting to Rs.93898/- vide K.C pass book No.121300304  from O.P.no.2  through O.P.no.1. At the time of sanctioning and disbursing the loan amount the O.p.no.2 has deducted Rs.1878/- towards  Insurance premium which is required to be deposited by O.p.no.2 in the Insurance company (O.P.no.3) only to cover up the risk of damage crop for the year 2019-20 . In the written version though it is stated by O.P.no.1 and 2  that the Insurance premium of the petitioner in respect of kharif crop of 2019-20 has been deposited in the Insurance company but the insurance company has stated that no Insurance premium of the petitioner in respect of kharif crop for the year 2019-20 has been deposited by O.P.no.1 and 2 .According the kharif crop of 2019-20  of the petitioner has not been insured  by Insurance company. The O.P.no.1 and 2 though filed some documents  in support of the deposit of Insurance premium but such documents does not indicates the name of the petitioner. More over the O.P.no.1 and 2  have not filed any relevant /cogent  evidence to prove that the insurance premium of the petitioner has been received by the Insurance company (O.P.no.3) for which the petitioner has filed several petitions dt.13.05.2021 and 23.07.2021 only to produce relevant / cogent evidence regarding deposit of Insurance premium.

                The above observations from our side clearly go to establish that the O.P.no.1 and 2 has committed patent deficiency in service by not depositing the Insurance premium of the petitioner in the Insurance company for which the O.P.no.1 and 2 are liable for the loss suffered by the petitioner in view of the observation of

1.     1999(1) CPR-23-N.C ,United India Insurance Vrs. Satrughan Sinha

11.   2014(1) CPR-571-N.C

111.  2006(111)CPJ-300-N.C

IV.     F.A No.311/2014-State Commission –Odisha.

 

O R D E R

                The dispute is allowed against the O.P.no.1 ,2 and 4 and dismissed against O.p.no.3. The O.P.no.1 , 2 and O.P.no.4  are directed to pay the Insurance claim of the petitioner in respect of the damaged crop for the year 2019-20  as per Govt.guide line . As regards  compensation we assess the same Rs.1000/- ( one thousand) as compensation and  Rs.500/-(five hundred )  as cost of the litigation expenses. The above direction shall be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order ,failing which  the petitioner is at liberty to take steps as per law for realization of the awarded amount.

This order is pronounced in the open commission  on this the 29th  day of October,  2021 under my hand and seal of the commission.                                                                                             

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Pitabas Mohanty]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MS. Miss Smita Ray]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly 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.