West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/2/2014

Lakshmikanta Dolai - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

19 Dec 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.02/2014                                                         Date of disposal: 19/12/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER : 

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. A. K. Dutta,  Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                        : Mr. M. K. Chowdhury & Mrs. S. Ghosh, Advocates.                                   

          

    Lakshmikanta Dolai, Shanti Dolai, S/o of Haripada Dolai, Vill. Rajapara, P.O. Toria, P.S.   

    Anandapur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur.…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Khetua Branch, P.O. Shirsa, P.S. Anandapur, Dist- Paschim Medinipur, Pin-721260.
2. Regional Manager, Agricultural Insurance Co. India Ltd., At OM Tower, 5^th Floor, 32 Chowringhee Road, (Near Park Street Metro Station), Kolkata-700071, West Bengal……………..Ops.

          The case of the complainants Lakshmikanta Dolai & Shanti Dolai , in short, is that they availed of Cultivation Loan 40,000/- on 9/12/2011 by opening Kishan Credit Card  A/C No.305986304056 upon which Op No.1 State Bank of India received premium 1940/- on 11/01/2012 for the year 2011-12.  It is reported by the complainant that the cultivation of potato was damaged for virous infection and on that ground the Op No.1 received 66% Insurance benefit from the Op No.2 Agricultural Insurance Company India Ltd.  But the said benefit is not received by the complainants from the Op No.1 despite written request.  Stating the case the complainant has come before us with the prayer for passing necessary direction upon the Ops for payment of Insurance benefit amount into 26,400/-  and litigation cost.  Documentary evidence on Kishan Credit Card application dated 16/11/2013 sent to the OP No.1 S.B.I with postal receipt and acknowledgement card.

           The Op No.1 S.B.I contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action as the complainants failed and neglected to repay the

Contd……….P/2

 

                                                              - ( 2 ) -

 loan.  Rather, Op NO.1 is entitled to receive the compensation for adjustment of their Cultivation Loan.  Thus, it is prayed for by the Op No.1 that necessary order may be passed for payment of compensation from the end of Op No.2 allowing OP No.1 for appropriating the amount of loan against the account and surplus if any may be refunded to the complainant.

            OP No.2 Insurance Company contested the case by filing separate written objection challenging that the case is barred by limitation and also for want of jurisdiction.  In this connection, the entire subject has been categorically explained in the W/O and very specifically disclosed the fact of payment made by them to the Op No.1 S.B.I for full and final settlement.  In order to support the question of payment, relevant documentary evidence namely MNAIS-CLAIM PAYMENT STATEMENT- RABI 2011-12 has been submitted together with estimated productivity reports and Government approval towards the scheme for 2011-12 in relation to the MNAIS programme.  Thus, the case lies against the Op No.2 should be dismissed.  

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1. Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?
2. Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?
3. Whether the case is barred by jurisdiction?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 4:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that it is the case of the Potato Cultivation Loan and on account of damage of potato-cultivation the Op No.2 Insurance Company has liability for payment of Insurance benefit to the complainants through Op No.1 S.B.I.  So, necessary direction should be given against the Op No.2 for payment of Insurance benefit with liberty to the Op No.1 S.B.I for payment after adjustment of the loan in favour of the complainant.

        Argument canvassed on behalf of Op No.1 S.B.I that the payment of compensation may be made after due adjustment of the loan and for this purpose Op No.2 is to make the payment Insurance amount.

        Ld. Advocate for the OP No.2 made clear through his elaborate submission with the help of the legal evidence on record that the payment lump sum has been made in terms of the MNAIS programme for the year 2011-12.  Towards the said payment, there is no specific challenge

Contd………….P/3

 

                                                             - ( 3 ) -

denying that Op No.1 S.B.I did not receive the same.  So the case of non-payment of Insurance benefit raised by the complainants has no merit against this Op No.2 Insurance Company.

        We have carefully considered the whole matter- in- dispute with the held of documentary evidence as available before us.  It appears that the payment has already been made by the Op No.2 Insurance Com. in favour of Op No.1 S.B.I.  So, there is no confusion in the matter.  Thus, the case is maintainable against the Op No.1 S.B.I and the complainants are merited for getting Insurance benefit after adjustment of their dues to the S.B.I. 

        Under the facts and circumstances, the complainants are entitled to get Insurance benefit subject to due adjustment of their dues.

        The issues are accordingly disposed of.

                                Hence        

                               It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is allowed  against the Op No.1 S.B.I and dismissed against Op No.2 Insurance Company on contest  without cost.

           The Op NO.1 S.B.I is hereby directed for payment of Insurance benefit if any in favour of the complainants after proper adjustment of their loan and other dues within one month from this date of order. 

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

         President                          Member              Member                             President

                                                                                                                  District Forum

                                                                                                              Paschim Medinipur.