Date of filing: 14.06.2017 Date of disposal: 13.06.2018
Complainant: Kalachand Konar, S/o. Late Taraknath Konar, resident of Vill: Kashipur, PO: Sahebganj, PS: Bhatar, Dist: Purba Barddhaman, PIN – 713 121.
Opposite Party: 1. The Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, having its Branch Office at Sahebganj Branch, Sahebganj, PO: Sahebganj, PS: Bhatar, Dist: Purba Barddhaman, PIN – 713 121.
2. The A.D.A., Bhatar Block, PS: Bhatar, Dist: Purba Barddhaman, PIN – 713 125.
Present:
Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.
Hon’ble Member: Dr. Tapan Kumar Tripathy.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Debdas Rudra & Subrata Ghosh.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1: Ld. Advocate, Kuntal Baksi.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2: Ld. Advocate, Deb Krishna Sinha.
J U D G E M E N T
The present application under Section 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 filed by the complainant against the O.Ps. on the allegation that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice he, himself along with his family members suffering mental pain and agony, accordingly praying Rs. 14,520=00 towards crop insurance as per Govt. Notification i.e. 44% of the loan amount as well as
Rs. 50,000=00 as compensation towards mental pain and agony and also Rs. 15,000=00 as litigation cost.
The case of the complainant is that he is a cultivator by profession and due to his livelihood he obtained K.C.C. loan of Rs. 33,000=00 from the OP-1 for a period of 2014-15 due to paucity of fund and accordingly the OP-1 granted the said loan of Rs. 33,000=00 in favour of him and he received the said loan amount through his Bank A/c. No. 22371921425 on 28.11.2014 and after receiving the said amount he started to cultivate the paddy in Boro season but due to natural calamity of storm the paddy crops have damaged for which he lodged the complaint.
The allegation is that due to damage of crops he as well as other farmers all were suffering from huge loss and for such financial situation of farmers, Govt. announced or disbursement of 44% crop insurance to those farmers who obtain the K.C.C. loan from Bank or any other financial institutions for the period of 2014-15, but as per announcement by the Govt. for disbursement of 44% crop insurance the farmers who obtained K.C.C. loan have not get any disbursement of 44% crop insurance and for that the complainant and others have requested the OP Bank to disburse 44% of loan in favour of them as per Govt. notification and thereafter they also requested the OP-2 for making arrangements for disbursement as per Govt. notification, but both the Ops did not pay heed to the request of the complainant along with others and as such all of them have been suffering a lot.
The further allegation is that the complainant and others sent a mass application vide letter dated 17.10.2016 requesting to the Ops to make arrangements for disbursement of 44% loan amount obtained by each of them as per Govt. notification and Ops also received the said application on 17.10.2016 with official seal and signature but failed to make any arrangements for disbursement of 44% of the loan amount towards crop insurance and such type of attitude of both the Ops showed their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and so that the complainant along with his family members have been suffering great mental pain and agony and for that the complainant compelled to lodge this present application to get 44% of loan amount towards crop insurance as per Govt. notification along with compensation as well as litigation cost.
The cause of action of this case arose on 04.04.2015 i.e. from the destruction of paddy due to violent storm and finally on 17.10.2016 when Ops have received the letter sent by the complainant dated 17.10.2016.
Both the Ops 1&2 have contested the present complaint under Section 12 of C.P. Act by filing separate written versions. The OP-1 i.e. the Branch Manager of the Allahabad Bank stated in the written objection that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint as such the complaint is barred by principles of estoppels, waiver & acquiescence and also barred under the law of limitation.
OP-1 also denied all the allegations as alleged by the complainant by saying that all are false, frivolous and further stated that Zonal Manager and Chairman of Allahabad Bank are necessary parties and as such the complaint is barred by non-joinder of necessary parties.
OP-1 further stated that the complainant has not been specifically mentioned regarding natural calamity for which he suffered the loss of Boro paddy.
The specific case of the OP-1 is that the compensation of the crop in case of loss of crops by natural calamity has been governed by Agricultural Insurance Co. of India Ltd. and this OP has been forwarded 215 K.C.C. holder to the Agricultural Insurance Co. of India Ltd. and the amount of compensation would be directly credited to the account of the applicant by the Agricultural Insurance Co. of India Ltd. and OP-1 has no liability to pay any amount as compensation as per Govt. notification and accordingly the complainant is not entitled to get any amount as compensation and the claim application should be dismissed.
The OP-2 also contested by separate written version where stated that present claim application is not maintainable and also barred by limitation and the complainant has no cause of action for filing the present claim application and also denied all the allegation as alleged by the complainant.
The specific case of the OP-2 is that though the complainant requested for making arrangement for disbursement of the amount but the OP-2 do not have any authority to disburse the amount as claimed by the complainant instead of making arrangements of crop cutting experiment of Boro paddy for the year 2014-15 on the basis of which the crop insurance has been settled.
The OP-2 further stated that their duty is related only to process of crop cutting experiment as per the notification and guidelines of NAIS which do not come under the purview of this case and as such this complainant cannot be a consumer of this OP and hence this OP prayed before the Forum to be expunged them from this case as defective party and the present claim application liable to be dismissed against this OP.
On considering the claim application along with written versions filed by the OP-1&2, the following issues settled by the present form:
- Whether this claim application maintainable in its present form?
- Whether both the Ops liable to disburse 4% crop insurance in favour of the complainant as per Govt. notification?
- Whether complainant entitled to get any decree as prayed for?
- To what other relief or relies, to the complainant entitle as per Govt. notification/ as per provisions of law?
All points are taken up together for comprehensive discussion and decision. It is fact that the complainant has taken loan amount from Allahabad Bank amounting to Rs. 33,000=00 on date and to prove the same he produced the Xerox copy of Bank statement and it is also admitted that Ops are not denying the statement of the complainant. So as per version of the C.P. Act the complainant is a consumer under the Ops.
The loan amount and the amount of relief claimed by the complainant it comes well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. The cause of action also has occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant also able to file the present claim application within time as per provision. The case is maintainable in its present form.
Now main question of consideration is whether Ops are liable to pay the amount as claimed by the complainant as compensation. As it appears that Ops never denied through their written version regarding Govt. notification and also not denied regarding the loan which taken by the complainant as KCC holder.
Complainant is able to produce all the documents to prove his own case. The Ops also admitted the same but they are denied their liability by saying that Op-1 i.e. the Bank from where the complainant has taken the loan for cultivation, that they are not actually liable to pay any amount to the complainant as per his claim as there is agricultural insurance company who are only liable and accordingly as per version of OP-1 the same properly informed before agricultural insurance co. by list (215 KCC holder) and the said agricultural insurance co. who received the same by official seal and signature for consideration.
At the same time the Op-2 also denied that they have no authority to disburse the amount claimed by the complainant but they only made arrangement to conduct crop cutting experiment of Boro paddy for the year 2014-15 for which the crop insurance has been settled and further stated that the process of crop insurance and claim settlement are not the duty of this OP but as per notification and guidelines of NAIS they are fulfilled their duty with the process of crop cutting experiment and accordingly the claimant is not at all consumer of the OP.
On considering the version of both the ops as well as the claim petition it is clear that complainant has taken loan from OP-1 i.e. the Allahabad Bank for cultivation for the year of 2014-15 as KCC holder and he also able to prove the same by documents and it is also not disputed that the Govt. has declared notification that all the KCC holder who cultivated land for the year of 2014-15 after receiving the bank loan and if the said cultivation damage due to natural calamity then they are entitled for disbursement of 44% per cent crop insurance to KCC loan holder from the Bank.
It is also reveals from the claim application that after announcement of disbursement of 44% crop insurance by the Govt., farmers who obtain KCC loan from the cooperative societies under the Sahebganj –I No. G.P. they have got 44% disbursement of crop insurance and it also appears that complainant has also taken steps before the bank for disbursement of 44% of total amount as per Govt. notification and also taken steps before OP-2 for making arrangement for disbursement of 44% loan amount. At the same time though OP-1 denied the claim of the complainant by saying that complainant is nothing but mere borrower so he cannot entitled to get any relief under the C.P. Act and at the same time the Ops forwarded the names of 215 KCC holder including the complainant to the agricultural insurance Co. for consideration of relief claimed by petitioner and also admitted through written venison that the eligible claimants are entitled to get the compensation as per Govt. notification to cultivate the Boro paddy for the year 2014-15 by the Agricultural Insurance Co. ltd.
Accordingly the present Forum has no hesitation to hold that it is the duty of the Bank to pay 44% crop insurance as per Govt. notification to the complainant.
Accordingly here in the instant case it appears that claimant has taken loan against Ops and as it is admitted regarding the Govt. notification. So claimant is entitled to get relief from Ops and both the Ops have no right to deny their obligation by saying that agricultural insurance co is entitled to pay the 44% crop insurance.
Now it is to be considered regarding the amount for which claimant is entitled to receive from Ops as because as per claim application he received Rs. 33,000=00 as loan from the Bank as KCC holder, on the other hand, as per OP Bank he borrowed Rs. 48,000=00 so the complainant get relief on the basis of his own claim i.e. Rs,. 33,000=00 which he actually received from the Bank.
Under such circumstances claimant is able to prove that according to law he is entitled to get relief as per prayer. Accordingly all the issues are disposed of.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint being No. 87/2017 is allowed on contest against the Ops and both the Ops are equally liable to pay the amount as compensation and as such both Ops are hereby directed to pay Rs. 14,520=00 as 44% of total claim amount of Rs. 33,000=00 as per Govt. notification within 45 days from the date of passing of this award, in default, the Ops are liable to pay Rs. 8% interest on the amount of compensation equally and the Ops are also directed to pay Rs. 20,000=00 as mental pain, agony and harassment and also Rs. 5,000=00 as litigation cost equally to the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this award, in default, the complainant is at liberty to put the award in execution as per provisions of law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Nivedita Ghosh) DCDRF, Burdwan
President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
