Date of filing: 14.06.2017 Date of disposal: 27.06.2018
Complainant: Uttam Kumar Dari, S/o. Sri Kasinath Dari, 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. 50,600=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. 30,000=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. 1,15,000=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. 1,15,000=00 in favour of him and he received the said loan amount through his Bank A/c. No. 22371918015 on 26.11.2014 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 at all maintainable in its present form?
- Whether complainant entitled to get any decree as prayed for?
Both the issues are taken up together for consideration. The complainant in his claim application claims 44% crop insurance as the Govt. announcement was that the Govt. will disburse 44% crop insurance for natural calamity for the farmers who obtained KCC loan from the bank for the year 2014-15.
Accordingly the complainant to prove his case submits bank statement from where it reveals that the complainant obtained Rs. 1, 15,000=00 as loan amount on 26.11.2014 from OP-1 Bank for cultivation. Regarding this Ops also not deny the fact.
At the same time the complainant also files his KCC which was issued on 17.12.2007 and valid up to 16.12.2010. So the Govt. notification as that the Govt. will disburse 44% crop insurance to those farmers who obtained loan for the year 2014-15 for cultivation in Boro season.
Accordingly, the KCC card which the complainant has filed that is not actually for the year of 2014-15, it is already expired.
Further on perusing the record it appears that the Ops sent 215 KCC holders name to Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd. so that the l eligible KCC holder can get 44% crop insurance as per Govt. notification.
On considering from all corners it appears that the complainant has failed to prove that he is a proper consumer for which he entitle to file the present claim application, as it appears that the complainant was a KCC holder of year of 17.12.2007 and the said KCC card expired on 16.12.2010 where as the Govt. notification is that all the KCC holder who obtained loan from the bank for the year 2014-15 for Boro paddy cultivation are only entitled to get 44% crop insurance if are suffered by damaged cultivation due to natural calamity.
Here in the instant case it appears that the complainant failed to prove that he is a genuine consumer by producing proper documents.
Moreover it appears that OP-1 informed through written version that they have already forwarded the names of 215 KCC holders to the Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd. for their relief as per claim. But in the instant case it is found that the name of the complainant’s father in the list of the 215 KCC holders which is sent by the Bank is mentioned as Tapan Dari, whereas the name of the complainant’s father is mentioned as Kasinath Dari in the Voter I-Card and KCC card submitted by the complainant as document before this Forum. So from this it is not proved that Uttam Dari, the complainant of the C.C. No. 91/2017 and the name which OP Bank sent as a KCC holder is a same person.
The complainant himself also not mentioned his name in their own list as a consumer before OP-1.
Moreover, as per bank statement filed by the complainant as well as OP-1 which shows that the complainant received the loan amount of Rs. 1, 15,000=00 from OP-1 on 26.11.2014 but as he failed to prove that he was a KCC holder for the year 2014-15. So from this loan amount of Rs. 1, 15,000=00 will not prove that he actually received the same as KCC holder.
So from the conduct of the complainant it is clear that no doubt he was/is a farmer by profession and it is also not disputed that he received Rs. 1, 15,000=00 from OP-1 but at the same time it is also not proved that he received the loan amount of Rs. 1,15,000=00 as KCC holder for the year 2014-15 and also not able to prove that he cultivated Boro paddy for the year 2014-15, which damaged due to natural calamity.
So complainant is totally failed to prove his allegation against the Ops.
Accordingly he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. So both the issues are disposed of.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint being No. 91/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Ops without any cost.
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
