BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
Complaint case No.235 of 2016. Date of Instt.: 06.09.2016. Date of Decision: 18.07.2017.
Rajpal aged 36 years son of Ram Chand, Caste Kamboj, resident of Bhuna, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.
...Complainant.
Versus
Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank Branch Bhuna, Tehsil and District Fatehabad, through its Branch Manager.
...Opposite Party.
Complaint U/S 12 of the CP Act,1986
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President. Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member. Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present: Sh. Bhal Singh, Advocate for complainant. Sh. I.S. Sihag, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred as op).
2. Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that complainant is a farmer and has saving account in the op bank bearing account No.541 dated 17.9.2009 alongwith his father Ram Chand son of Suhava Ram and is doing transactions with the op bank. The complainant has also availed KCC limit of Rs.1,00,000/- from op bank. That as per statement of account of the complainant, Rs.922.56 was debited on account of Fasal Bima on 27.7.2016 without prior information, knowledge and consent of complainant and without any signature of the complainant. In this way, op bank has illegally and wrongly imposed the above said scheme upon the complainant and debited the amount of Rs.922.52 from the KCC account of the complainant. It is further averred that when the complainant inquired about the matter from the Bank Manager, it came to his knowledge that said scheme has been launched by Government and Manager stated that he cannot do anything about this and ousted him from the Bank. Thus, the op has harassed and humiliated the complainant by not performing duties as per law and as per rule of RBI any bank cannot debit the amount from the account of any person without prior permission, information, consent and knowledge of account holder. The complainant is entitled to refund of the above said amount alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding cause of action; that complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer; suppression of material facts; maintainability and estoppal etc. On merits, it has been submitted that at the time of applying for advancement of loan, the complainant has executed the hypothecation agreement and other documents in favour of the bank and as per clause 5 of the agreement of hypothecation executed by the complainant for advancement of the loan, the complainant has given undertaking that “The Borrower(s) shall, at all times, keep such items of security as are of insurable nature, insured against loss or damage by fire and other risks, as may be required by the Bank and shall deliver to the Bank all such policies. It shall be also lawful for the Bank, but not obligatory upon the Bank to insure by debit to the borrower(s) account(s) in respect of the security as are of insurable nature. The proceeds of such insurance shall be at the option of the Bank either be applied towards replacement of the security or towards the satisfaction of the Bank’s dues. It has been further submitted that as per Administrative approval of Govt. of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare vide their reference No.13015/03/2016-Credit II dated 23.2.2016, which was notified by Haryana Govt. Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department vide No.3009/Agri-II (1) -2016/10854 dated 17.6.2016, it has been clearly mentioned at para no.1 that crops are to be covered (notified crops) and para no.6, farmers to be covered and clearly specified in para No.6(b) and 6(c) for loanee farmers and non loanee farmers and as such in accordance with the instructions and directions of the Government, the amount of Rs.922.56/- has been debited from the said loan account of the complainant on account of premium of crop insurance and under this, the crop of the complainant standing in the land for which the complainant has obtained the standard loan, has been insured by the op bank from the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and as such the complainant is not competent to file the present complaint in view of undertaking given by the complainant himself that the op bank can charge the amount so specified by the Government of India. Hence, there is no illegality and deficiency in service on the part of op bank and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Annexure C1, copy of statement of account Annexure C2, copies of news items Annexurex C3, C4 and copy of voter identity card Annexure C5. On the other hand, op produced affidavit of Sh. R.D. Bishnoi, Branch Manager Annexure R1, Loan & Advances Circular No.21 /2016 dated 5.4.2016 Annexure R2 alongwith copy of scheme, letter dated 15.12.2016 Annexure R3, letter dated 30.6.2016 Annexure R4 and copy of hypothecation agreement Annexure R5.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated the version of the complaint and prayed for acceptance of the same. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has reiterated the version of the written statement and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
7. We have heard rival contentions of the parties. There is no dispute that complainant who is a farmer was having KCC limit of Rs.1,00,000/- from the op bank. From the copy of statement of account of complainant Annexure C2, it is evident that an amount of Rs.922.56/- has been debited by the op bank on 27.7.2016 on account of Fasal Bima against which the complainant has filed the present complaint with the allegations that above said amount has been debited from his account wrongly and illegally without his consent/ proposal for insurance of his crop. The opposite party has placed on file scheme i.e. Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) launched by Government of India in 2016 and the clause 3 of the said scheme is reproduced as under:-
3. Farmers to be covered: All farmers including share croppers and tenant farmers growing notified crops in a notified area during the season who have insurable interest in the crop are eligible.
3.1 Compulsory Coverage: The enrolment under the scheme, subject to possession of insurable interest on the cultivation of the notified crop in the notified area, shall be compulsory for following categories of farmers:
3.1.1. Farmers in the notified area who possess a Crop Loan account/ KCC account (called as Loanee Farmers) to whom credit limit is sanctioned/ renewed for the notified crop during the crop season.
3.1.2. Such other farmers whom the Government may decide to include from time to time.
Further, clause 14.8 of the above said scheme lays down as under:-
14.8 Loanee farmers
14.8.1 As the Scheme is compulsory for all loanee cultivators availing SAO loans for notified crops, it is mandatory for all loanee cultivators to insist on insurance coverage as per provisions of the Scheme.
From the said scheme i.e. Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) launched by Government of India, it is crystal clear that insurance of crop of loanee farmers was compulsorily and mandatory to be done by the concerned Banks. Similarly, the Haryana Government also issued Notification dated 17.6.2016 for implementation of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana in the State during Kharif 2016 and Rabi 2016-2017 and clause 6 (b) and 6 (c) of the said notification regarding Farmers to be covered reads as under:-
b) All Farmers availing Seasonal Agricultural Operations (SAO) loans from Financial Institution (i.e. loanee farmers) for the notified crops would be covered compulsorily.
c) The scheme will be optional for the non-loanee farmers.
8. The above said clause of the notification of the Haryana Government also clearly directs that insurance of crop of loanee farmers would be compulsory. Moreover, as the complainant has availed cash credit facility against the crop, therefore, as per clause 5 of the loan agreement, the Bank has authority to insure the crop against which the loan has been taken and also has authority to debit the premium from the borrower’s account. As the above said schemes of insurance of crops of loanee farmers have been launched by Government of India and is being implemented by the Government of Haryana, this Forum is not empowered to look into its validity or non validity and the op bank has acted in accordance with the instructions of the Government and also as per clause of the loan agreement and therefore, act of the bank cannot be held illegal or wrong. If there is any grievance to the complainant regarding the policy matters of the Centre/ State Government, then he can challenge the policy matters of the Government before appropriate authority.
9. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed. However, the complainant is given liberty to approach the appropriate court. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM Dt.18.07.2017
(Raghbir Singh) President District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
(R.S.Panghal) (Ansuya Bishnoi) Member Member
