Hon’ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.
The basic fact of the Complainant’s case in a few words is that the Complainant is a marginal cultivator. The OP is Branch Manager of the said bank. The Complainant intended to borrow on K.C.C. Loan from UBKGB, OP to produce potato in his own land due to earning his livelihood as a cultivator and thereby borrowed on K.C.C. Loan Rs. 64,000/- from the OP Bank, Saheber Hat Branch, Cooch Behar on 17.01.2014 bearing Loan Account No. 400321310000853, but no documents of insurance benefit affairs, installment no.s and its amount and guidelines of the norms of the said bank were supplied to the Complainant. Thereby the OP violated the terms of the Registered Crop Insurance which is essence for compensation on crop insurance. The Complainant cultivated potatoes in his own land after borrowing but at the time of germination the said crop rotten due to natural calamity. Subsequently, the Complainant informed it to the OP Bank for providing insurance claim as per the terms of the K.C.C. Loan but he did not get insurance benefit. The bank authority remained silent despite repeated requests by the Complainant. Finally, the Complainant submitted an application to the DM, Cooch Behar on 04.03.2016 with a request to supply the documents relating to crop insurance benefit, but no response was received therefrom. Subsequently, on 18.04.2016 an application was submitted to the Public Information Officer under the RTI Act for the papers of loan, no. of Insurance installments etc. where from the Complainant came to know that an amount of loan of Rs. 64,000/- was disbursed, but main report like the amount of claim insurance benefit and the deduction amount of insurance were not supplied. Therefore, the Complainant suffered loss and injury for not getting the insurance benefit. As a result, the Complainant served a legal notice to OP-1 through his advocate on 11.06.2018 which the OP received on 15.06.2018, but they did not take any positive step. Hence, the present case is filed. The cause of action for the present case arose on 04.03.2016 and on subsequent dates. The Complainant therefore, prayed for an award for Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment, Rs. 25,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs. 15,000/- towards litigation cost.
The OP contested the case by filing written version denying the main allegation. The positive defence case of the opposite parties in brief is that, the Complainant made some allegation against the D.M., Cooch Behar, but the said D.M. is not a party to this case. So, the present claim of the Complainant cannot be entertained. There is no latches on the part of the opposite parties. There is no record of potato cultivation as per the documents submitted by the Complainant. So, the case is not maintainable. There is no cause of action to file the present case. The Complainant illegally demanded certain amounts on different heads without any basis. The OP, therefore, claimed that the present case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The allegation made vis-à-vis the defence case made out by the opposite parties demand for ascertainment of the following points for adjudication of the present case.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether the Complainant is a Consumer under the C.P. Act?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief if any the Complainant is entitled to get?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No. 1.
It is the specific case of the Complainant that he applied for K.C.C. Loan which was granted but he was deprived for getting the insurance benefits.
The OP could not deny the said allegation by providing any cogent evidence other than an evasive denial.
Although the OP claimed that the application was incomplete. However, after perusing the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, the Commission is of the view that the Complainant is a Consumer under the C.P. Act.
Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered positively in favour of the Complainant.
Point No. 2 & 3.
The main allegation of the Complainant is that all notified crops are to be covered with insurance in order to make the K.C.C. Loan a success. Since, the OP alleged to have not insured the crops of the Complainant, so the Complainant has been deprived of getting the insurance benefit as a result of which, he sustained loss and injury for which he should be compensated.
Let us judicially enquire into the said allegation of the Complainant with the evidence available in the case record.
So far as the terms of Crop Insurance registration is concerned, the Complainant proved Annexure-A being Circular No. C38/24/2013-14/CMRD-197 dated 05.06.2013 which provides interalia that all notified crops are to be covered under the crop insurance. Clause 18.2 further provides that to provide insurance coverage and financial support to the farmer in the event of failure of crops as a result of natural calamities, pests and diseases, to encourage farmers to adopt progressive farming practices, high value inputs and higher technology in agriculture, to help stabilize farm incomes, particularly in disaster years, to support and stimulate primarily production of food crops and oilseeds and farmers to be covered : all farmers (both loanee and non-loanee irrespective of their size of holdings) including sharecropper, tenant farmers growing insurable crops covered.
Having not received his legitimate claim, the Complainant claimed to have applied to the P.I.O., Cooch Behar on 18.04.2016 where from he came to know that a sum of Rs. 64,000/- was disbursed as loan to the Account No. 400321310000853. That the said loan was disbursed to the account of the Complainant is further established with the document like statement of Account for the period 11.07.2011 to 31.08.2022 of the OP Bank Saheber Hat, Cooch Behar dated 31.08.2022. As per the said statement, a sum of Rs. 64,000/- was debited to the said account ending with the 3-digit No. 853 on 17.01.2014.
A close reading of Annexure-D being the reply to the question of the Complainant under the RTI Act dated 22.08.2016 reveals interalia that two information were supplied and the Complainant was directed to file any appeal if he so preferred.
The Annexure-C specifically discloses that the Complainant questioned to the Appellate Authority demanding answer to some questions under the RTI Act that crop insurance was compulsory but neither his money for premium was deducted nor was it deposited. But all his questions under Annexure-C appears to have remained unanswered.
The OP could not file any document as to how the grievance of the Complainant was redressed.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that there was no cultivation and as such there was no question of any insurance, since insurance is done on the standing crops.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant severely attacked the said point of argument of the opposite parties on the ground that had he not cultivated any crop, the said amount of Rs. 64,000/- would not have been debited as K.C.C. Loan.
The argument has reasonable force. The circular categorically provides for interalia in Point No. 8 of the said Annexure-A being the Kisan Credit Card Revised Scheme wherein it is provided that “As per our existing guideline, KCC Rupay Cards are proposed to be issued to each farmer, having KCC Limit as per Govt. guidelines.”
Therefore, the said Insurance Card did not provide for any specific condition of which the Complainant failed to comply with the same.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that OP Bank is a Gramin Bank and it is serving the village people since its inception.
The argument has no force because in the given facts and circumstances, so far as the evidence on record is concerned, it is evident that the OP Bank has not acted in a manner with the OP for which the said revised scheme of K.C.C. was enacted. This inaction on the part of the OP Bank tantamounts to deficiency in service towards the Complainant.
Accordingly, the Complainant is entitled to be compensated for the harassment and mental pain and agony by the opposite parties.
Therefore the Points No. 2 & 3 are answered in affirmative in favour of the Complainant.
Since all the points are decided in favour of the Complainant so the case succeeds on contest with cost.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the CC Case No. CC/54/2018 be and the same is allowed on contest with cost Rs.5,000/-. The Complainant do get an award of Rs.10,000/- towards mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.
The OP-1 & 2 are jointly and/or severally responsible to pay the awarded money to the Complainant and they are directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant within 30 (thirty) days from the date of passing Final Order to the Complainant failing which the awarded sum will carry an interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of passing the Final Order till the date of realization thereof.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by post forthwith, free of cost for information and necessary action, if any.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
