DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 30th day of March, 2019
C.D Case No. 01 of 2018
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Sri Santosh Kumar Behara
S/o: Late Purusottam Behera
At: Hasinpur,
Po: Ganijang,
Via: Barpada,
Ps/Dist: Bhadrak (R)
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. The Branch Manager,
The Balaosre-Bhadrak Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Bonth Branch,
At/Po/Ps: Bonth,
Dist: Bhadrak
2. The Secretary, Ganijang SCS Ltd., Ganijang,
At/Po: Ganijang
Via: Barpada,
Ps/Dist: Bhadrak (R)
3. Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd., through its Regional Manager
Regional Office:- 87, Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar- 751007
…………………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Mr. Radhakanta Nayak, Adv & Associates
Counsel For the O.Ps No. 1 & 2: Mr. Muzahid Akhtar Khan, Adv
Counsel For the O.Ps No. 3: Mr. Amarendra Ku Panda, Adv
Date of hearing: 14.08.2018
Date of order: 30.03.2019
BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
The facts of the complaint are to the effect that the complainant is a member borrower of the OP No. 2 service Co-Operative Society and had borrowed short term crop loan of Rs 10,000/- in khariff- 2011 and as per lending rule the complainant had paid insurance premium to the Society to secure his borrowing from the damages to be caused due to natural calamities. The khariff crop for the said year was damaged and the farmers borrowed loan from Ganijang SCS could get the crop damage compensation only other than him although his village was declared as crop damaged and appeared in the damage list. In order to get his claim he has repeatedly requested the O.Ps No. 1 & 2 for payment of claim but they turned a deaf ear to his grievance which compelled him to raise this dispute in this Forum praying for a direction to settled the claim with compensation and cost. O.Ps objected on the point of allegation and contested the case and appeared in the Forum through the advocates. OP No. 3 through his advocate filed written version in stating that the complainant is not directly linked with the Insurance company as the financing Banks use to submit insurance proposal by numbers with amount of premium not by name of the farmers and therefore OP No. 3 cannot say anything about the claim as the borrowers list of affected G.Ps and villages are maintained and retained with financing Bank. Hence it is not a necessary party to this case and therefore OP No. 3 be excluded from the list.
OP No. 1 & 2 submitted written version in stating that the complainant is a borrower of OP No. 2 had availed a loan of Rs 10,000/- during khariff, 2011 and had paid required premium to insure the crop against any damage due to natural calamities. The crop of Ganijang G.P was declared damaged by the competent authorities of the State Govt. and the borrowers of Ganijang G.P were entitled to get the claim proportionately. Accordingly the complainant was entitled to claim of Rs 6961/- which was kept in the sundry payable account (suspense account) as the compensation amount was to be credited either to loan A/c or to saving Bank account of the borrower or in the worst case the amount should be kept in the suspense (sundry payable A/c). As the borrower had no loan outstanding in his loan A/c with the Society nor he was having SB A/c with the OP Society nor he was available at his home when the special massagers visited his residence, the amount of compensation was credited to suspense account of the complainant to settle the claim and submitted compliance to the financing bank. However the borrower was made available after one year at his home when OP No. 2 got the scope to open SB A/c (“Zero” balance account) with the society and credited the insurance claim to the account of the complainant on 30.09.2015. Since then the complainant has never made any query about his crop insurance claim till the date of filing case in this Forum during January, 2018. Hence this case comes under barred by limitation and there is no deficiency of service on behalf of OP No. 1 & 2 rather the complainant has initiated case on false ground in this Forum and hence this case does not bear any merit and liable to be dismissed with cost.
It is also a fact that after filing of written version by the O.Ps, the Advocate of the complainant did not appear before the Forum for hearing of the case but on the other hand filed a no instruction memo to relinquish the case as the complainant has not contacted his advocate since the date of filing of this case and has not furnished the required documents to be submitted in the Forum in the time of hearing of the case. In the above backdrop the Forum do not find any alternative other than to dismiss this case with cost as prayed by the O.Ps. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
The complaint be and the same is dismissed with cost. The complainant is directed to pay Rs500/- to OP No. 2 for filing fake case for no mistake of O.Ps. This order must be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the OP No. 2 is at liberty to take suitable action under the provision of CP Act.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 30th March, 2019 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
