DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.

                                       ………………..

Presents:-

                   `1. Sri A.K.Purohit, President.

                    2. Smt. S.Rath, Member.

                    Dated, Bolangir the 27^th day of November 2017.

                    C.C.No. 10 of 2017.

Jabadu Rana, son of Rajana Rana, Resident of village-Chhemtala

P.O- B.Fatkara, P.S.Bolangir Sadar, Dist- Bolangir.

                                                                                        ..          ..            Complainant.

                     -Versus-

1.The Branch Manager, Utkal Gramya Bank,Bairasar Branch,

   At/P.O-Bairasara, P.S.Bolangir Sadar, Dist-Bolangir.

2.Saibani Rana, wife of late Purna Ch.Rana.

3.Baisakhu Rana son of late Murali Rana.

4.Sukru Rana son of late Dhanu Raa.

   Sl.No.2 to 4 are resident of Chhemtala, P.O-B.Fatkara,

   P.S.Bolangir Sadar, Dist- Bolangir.

                                                                                       ..          ..             Opp.Parties.

Adv. for the Complainant- Sri A.Rana & B.C.Nanda.

Adv. for the O.P.No.1     - Sri B.K.Mishra.

Adv. for the O.Ps 2 to 4   - Sri P.K.Biswal.

                                                                             Date of filing of the case-16.03.2017

                                                                             Date of  order.                –27.11.2017.

JUDGMENT.

Sri A.K.Purohit.

1,              The case of the complainant is that, he is having a S.B. account in the branch of the O.P.No.1 at Bairasar vide Account No.12009019152. In the said account his crop insurance amount of Rs 1,09,996/- was deposited on dt.21.12.2016 and the present balance amount is Rs 1,10,586.12 paise. The complainant alleges that, the O.P.1 did not allow the complainant to withdraw money from the said account on the ground that, one Saibani Rana claims her share over the crop insurance amount. The complainant further alleges that, the O.P.1 without any authority and reasons has stopped with-drawl of money from the account of the complainant. Lastly the complainant sent a notice through his lawyer on dt18.01.2017,but the O.P.1 did not consider the same. Hence the complaint.

2.                 During pendency of the case, the O.P.No.2 to 4 appeared as intervener and pray for addition of party on the ground that, they have interest over the crop insurance claim amount, which prayer is allowed vide order dt.23.08.2017 and they are added as O.Ps No.2 to 4 and filed their written version jointly. According to O.Ps 2 to 4, the lands of village Fatkara and Chemtala are joint family property and they along with the complainant have paid the insurance premium jointly by paying Rs 1,000/- each but after deposit of the insurance claim amount in the account of the complainant, the complainant denied to pay the share to the O.Ps 2 to 4. Hence the O.Ps 2 to 4 prayed for their legitimate share from the crop insurance amount.

3.                The O.P.No.1 filed his written version separately. The O.P.No.1 denied the complainant’s allegations and submitted that, on the complaint of one Saibani Rana, he verified the ROR which is recorded jointly in the name of the complainant and O.Ps 2 to 4 and hence the O.P.No.1 doubted the correctness of the affidavit filed by the complainant at the time of submitting the crop insurance application. The O.P.No.1 taken steps to avoid misuse of the crop insurance amount and hence claims no deficiency in service on his part.

4.                Heard both the parties. Perused the materials available on record. It is an admitted fact that the lands of the complainant which were insured under the crop insurance scheme is a joint R.O.R. It is seen from the Xerox copy of affidavit filed by the O.P.No.1 that the complainant has produced the affidavit along with his crop insurance application that, he alone is in possession of all the insured lands. With these materials available on record the point for consideration is whether the complainant is in exclusive possession of the insured lands and whether the complainant is alone entitled to the insurance claim amount deposited in his SB account. To decide those points it requires a declaration of the right and possession of the complainant, which is not a consumer dispute. Further to decide on these issues it required a detailed examination of witnesses and examination of documents which is not possible in a summery procedure. The complainant is at liberty to approach a regular court of law for redressal of his grievance if so advised.

                   Accordingly the case of the complainant is dismissed.

Order pronounced in open forum this the 27^th day of November 2017.

                                (S.Rath)                                   (A.K.Purohit)

                               MEMBER.                                PRESIDENT.