Hon’ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.
The basic fact of the case of the Complainants in brief is that the Complainants namely Sri Baburam Roy, Sri Hiten Chandra Roy, Sri Mahendra Nath Roy and Sri Sudhir Chandra Roy intended to borrow Kisan Credit Loan from the O.P. No.1 bank Uttar Banga Keshetriya Gramin Bank, Saheberhat Branch, P.S. Kotwali to grow potatoes in their own land to earn their livelihood as cultivator. Accordingly, they borrowed Kisan Credit Loan (KC) from the OP, Uttar Banga Keshetriya Gramin Bank, Saheberhat Branch, Cooch Behar during 2013-14 but no documents of insurance benefits affairs, instalment number and its amounts and guidelines of the norms of the banks had been issued to the Complainants at the time of borrowing. The schedule of borrowing is given as under:-
Sl. No. | Names | Date of borrowing | A/C Nos. | Amount(Rs.) |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) |
1 | Sri Baburam Roy | 24.01.2014 | A/C no.:4000321310000897 | 45000/- |
2 | Sri Hiten Ch. Roy | 30.01.2014 | A/c no :4000321310000889 | 60000/- |
3 | Sri Mahendra Nath Roy | | A/C no:4000321330007505 | 55000/- |
4 | Sudhir Ch. Roy | 04.01.2014 | A/C no. 400032130000917 | 62000/- |
As per circular No. C/38/24/2013-14/CMRD-197 dated 05.06.13 item No.18.1 and 18.2 the following rules are reproduced:- 18.1 crop insurance: All notified crops to be covered under the crop insurance 18.2 objectives of insurance coverage:-
- To provide insurance coverage and financial support to the farmers 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 income, particularly in disaster years.
- To support and stulate primarily production of food crops and oilseeds.
- Farmers to be covered both loanee and non-loanee including share cropper, tenant farmers growing insurable crops covered.
The Complainants cultivated potatoes in their lands after borrowing, but due to germination all the potatoes were badly affected and rotten due to natural calamity which was out of control of the Complainants. The Complainants immediately went to the bank authority and informed the detail situation and claimed insurance as per the norms of the KC loans within the stipulated period. But the bank authority did not co-operate with the Complainants in spite of repeated request. Therefore the Complainants submitted application to the DM, Cooch Behar on 04.03.16 with a request to make arrangement to get back the essential document regarding crops insurance benefit. But no response was received. Thereafter the Complainants filed an application to the Public Information Officer, Cooch Behar under the RTI Act against which a reply was given on 22.08.16 vide Ref. No. OPRS/41/2016-17/497/F-RTI dated 22.08.16. From the said document it was known that NAIS amount is nil and claim amount is nil to the claim insurance benefit and deduction amount of the said insurance was nil. Actually O.Ps did not deduct insurance policy premium from the loan account of the Complainants. Therefore, the Complainants are suffering from acute mental pain and agony and suffered irreparable loss for not getting insurance benefit. So, the Complainants sent a legal notice to the O.P. No.1 & 2 which they received but did not take any action. The Complainant therefore filed the present case. The cause of action for the present case arose on 22.08.18 and on subsequent dates till the filing of the case.
The OP initially contested the case but subsequently the case was decided to be heard ex-parte and as per Order No.27 dated 09.11.2022, the ex-parte was vacated and OP was given opportunity to contest the case.
The Complainants filed evidence on affidavit but the OP did not adduce any evidence and as such the evidence was closed vide Order No.28 dated 19.12.2022.
The Defence case of the OP in brief is that the Complainant has no cause of action, the petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. The further defence case is that the statement made in Para-10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the complaint of the Complainants are maters of record and onus lies upon the Complainants to prove. There is no ground to bring the case under section 12 of the CP Act. The Complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
The respective case of the parties and the disputes involved therein suggest for determining the following points for ascertaining the real question in controversy.
Points for Determination
- Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service?
- 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.
The Complainants in order to substantiate the case proved some documents as well as adduced evidence by filing affidavit in chief but the OP did not adduce any evidence.
Ld. Advocate for the OP attacked the case as not maintainable as the case was filed beyond the period of two years. He argued that the cause of action arose in 2016 but the present case is filed after two years.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainants argued that the present Act came into force since 20.07.20 the present case was filed on 17.02.20 so it was rightly filed within two years from the date of arising the cause of action.
After perusing the case record it transpires that the Complainants claimed that the cause of action arose on 22.08.18, 27.08.18 and 30.08.18.
Legal notice appears to have been served upon the OP. But there is nothing within the case record that the OP replied to the said notice. As per the AD card the notice was served upon the OP and the seal of the post office is 30.08.18 the case was filed on 17.02.20 so it is well within the limitation period. Therefore the case is not barred by limitation.
Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that the account of the Complainants are joint account in the name of two persons. Out of them only one is made as party to this case. Without making all the accounts holder as Complainants to this case it is not maintainable.
After perusing the documents it is evident that the Complainants have account with the OP Bank but the name of the first account holder stands in the name of the Complainants. So, the Complainants being one of the members are entitled to file the present case.
There is no legal bar in filing the case by one of the joint account holder in as much as the OP could not establish any banking rule which prevent the Complainants from filing this case. Moreover the OP could not lead any evidence regarding the banking rules for filing the case.
After perusing the documents it transpires that the Complainants took loan from the OP Bank. The OP also did not deny that the Complainants are not their customer and they did not take the loan as alleged in the complaint. Thus the relation between the Complainants and the O.Ps is well established that the Complainant is a consumer and the OP is a service provider. The specific averment made out in the complaint that despite taking loan and having specific norms for insurance coverage under the KC loan the OP did not ensure their name. The OP could not deny the said allegation with cogent and succinct evidence. Thus having assessed the evidence in the case record and after going through the pleadings of the parties, it stands well established that the Complainants are consumer under the CP Act.
Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainants.
Point Nos. 2, 3 & 4.
These points relate to the ascertainment of the main issue as to whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank.
The Complainants alleged that despite being the consumer of the OP Bank, the latter did not ensure the name of the OP for which they were deprived of getting the Insurance claim after facing loss of crops due to natural calamities.
The Complainants in order to substantiate their claim proved Annexure- A series documents which shows that the Complainants Sri Baburam Roy, Sri Hiten Chandra Roy, Sri Mahendra Nath Roy and Sri Sudhir Chandra Roy are the customer and account holder of the OP Bank having their account number as per the passbook. The OP did not deny the same.
The Complainants also proved that the Bank authority had a circular for Kisan Credit Card scheme vide circular No. C/38/24/2013-14/CMRD-197 dated 05.06.13. The said circular supports the claim of the Complainants that they are entitled to be covered under the KC loan scheme.
The Complainants also proved Annexure-C series document wherefrom it is revealed that the Complainants having been unsuccessful to get the insurance claim lodged application to the DM, Cooch Behar for getting the information under the RTI Act on 4/3/2016.
Annexure-D series also discloses that the Nodal Officer under the RTI Act of DM, Cooch Behar referred the same to the SPIO to the Branch Manager, OP Bank.
Consequently, the OP Bank sent information on 22.08.2016 against the application of the Complainants under the RTI Act wherein it is categorically admitted that the amount of loan disbursed against the Complainants are same as claimed in the complaint.
Another document being Annexure-D series further discloses that the KCC (potato loan) was disbursed but the insurance was not covered in the name of the Complainants.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the Complainants has to bear the insurance. If there is sufficient money in the account of the Complainants then bank may pay for insurance.
The OP could not file any documents regarding the non-payment of the insurance policy by the bank.
Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that during renewal of the loan agreement the Complainants stated nothing about the insurance, so it is a defective complaint and not maintainable.
In fact the OP could not lead any evidence to discard the claim of the Complainants nor did they cross-examine the Complainants regarding the claim raised by the Complainants.
After perusing the pleadings and the documents it transpires that crops insurance has to be registered as per the banking policy. All notified crop are to be covered under the insurance. It is the obligation of the OP bank to pay the loan after deducting the insurance premium. But in the instant case the OP bank failed to discharge its obligation by not deducting the insurance money. There is no defence evidence that the Complainants did not suffer any loss due to natural calamity for which they are entitled to get the relief.
Thus having assessed in the entire evidence in the case record and on the basis of the observation made herein above the Commission comes to the findings that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank for which the Complainants are entitled to get compensation.
Accordingly, Point Nos. 2, 3 & 4 are answered in favour of the Complainants.
In the result complaint case succeeds.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No. CC/11/2020 be and the same is allowed on contest with cost Rs.1,000/- each.
The Complainants do get an award for a sum of Rs.10,000/- each towards mental pain and agony and Rs.5,000/- each towards deficiency in service.
The OP Bank is directed to pay sum of Rs.16,000/- each to the Complainants, total Rs.64,000/- (Rupees Sixty four thousand only) within 30 days from the date of passing the final order failing which the entire award money shall carry an interest @ 8% per annum till its realisation.
D.A. to note in the trial Register.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
