BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 278 of 2016                                                                         

                                                        Date of Institution         :           17.10.2016

                                                          Date of Decision   :           30.08.2017     

Prithvi Singh son of Shri Ram Karan, aged 45 years, caste Jat, resident of village Nahrana Tehsil Nathusari Chopta District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                                                Versus.

Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank, Village Nahrana District Sirsa through Branch Manager.

                                                                                                       ...…Opposite Party.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:       SHRI R.L. AHUJA, PRESIDENT.

SMT.RAJNI GOYAT, MEMBER.

          SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE, MEMBER.   

Present:       Sh. Mahesh Pareek,  Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Rishi Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party.

ORDER

                   In brief, the facts of the present complaint are that complainant is a medium class agriculturist having agricultural land in village Nahrana. The complainant is having account No.81188800024084 in the bank of the opposite party. That when the complainant got updated his pass book, then he found that there was an entry of outstanding amount of Rs.1578/- against the complainant being insurance of crop whereas neither the complainant applied for insurance of crop nor the op bank obtained any written consent from the complainant for showing the above said entry. The bank at its own shown the amount of Rs.1578/- outstanding against the complainant which is illegal and financial loss of Rs.1578/- has been caused to the complainant. When the complainant approached to the Manager of the op in this regard he did not give any satisfactory reply rather told that they will act as per the instructions of the head office and will not act as per the will of the customers and also told that they do the services of the bank and not of the complainant. The complainant repeatedly requested the staff of the bank that he is a small farmer and burden of this insurance may not be shifted upon him but of no avail. It is further averred that there is no reason for insurance of his crop as his land is lying vacant and no crop was sown and only trees are in the land. That the complainant has made several rounds to the opposite party and has suffered financial loss as well as mental agony but the opposite party neither removed the above said entry of crop insurance nor properly behaved with him. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus-standi, suppression of material facts and estoppal etc. It is also submitted that no consumer dispute is made out between the parties and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the op. On merits, it is submitted that as per Haryana Government Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department Notification No.3009/Agri.II(1)-2016/10854 dated 17.6.2016, all the farmers availing seasonal agriculture operations (SAO Loans from Financial Institutions) (i.e. loanee farmers) for the notified crops would be covered compulsorily under insurance from the notified insurance companies as per the guidelines of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare. Accordingly, the crops of the complainant were insured and a sum of Rs.1,578/- was debited in the account of the complainant as insurance premium. The insurance of the crops is compulsory as per above notification and as such, the op has acted as per provisions of the above notification in the matter of insurance of crops of complainant and thereby debiting the insurance premium in his loan account. The op has acted in accordance to the provisions of the above notification, which fact was made known and clear to the complainant. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.

3.                Both the parties have led their evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The complainant has placed on record Ex.C1-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C2 and Ex.C3-copies of the news items, Ex. C4 copy of passbook and Ex.C5 copy of letter. On the other hand, op produced affidavit of Sh. Chander Parkash, Branch Manager as Ex.R1, copy of application form for agricultural credit Ex.R2, copy of letter dated 3.8.2016 Ex.R3, copy of minutes Ex.R4, copy of notification Ex.R5, copies of Annexure-A regarding threshold yield Ex.R6, copy of document of sum insured, premium and subsidy of cluster-I Ex.R7, copy of Annexure C i.e. proposal/ application Ex.R8 and copies of documents Ex.R to Ex.R12.

4.                We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for both the parties.

5.                We have observed that an amount of Rs.1578/- was debited to complainant’s account No.81188800024084 on 29.07.2016 by the bank (Op) on account of the insurance premium for insurance of crops of the complainant as per Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna and it is an admitted fact. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant raised crop loan of Rs.2,12,000/- on 23.3.2016 and on the date of debit of insurance premium, the outstanding balance (debit) was Rs.2,12,943/-. As per minutes of the meeting of State Level Bankers Committee (SLBC) Haryana dated 21.07.2016 in respect of PMFBY it was compulsory for getting insurance cover of crops of all loanee farmers. Further as per the same proceedings dated 21.07.2016 it was decided that there was no need for getting the Annexure (C) signed from farmers before deduction of premium. The op claimed that the bank has deposited the premium amount to the complainant’s account as per policy of Government of India for the purpose of insuring the crops of borrowing farmers and there was no need to obtain prior consent of the complainant as the Government of India and concerned agencies repeatedly informed the farmers and general public through Media channels. It is further observed that the complainant has not placed any record on file showing that he has not sown any crops in his fields and never informed the bank about none sowing of crops in his field before the debit of premium of PMFBY. We have found no deficiency and wrong on the part of the op bank. Hence we have of the considered opinion that the complainant farmer has failed to prove his case.

6.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.  A copy of order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                 President

Dated: 30.08.2017.                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

Member      Member