Date of filing:- 06/07/2015.
Date of Order:- 17/05/2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 42 of 2015.
Iswara Sahu S/o late Babula Sahu, aged about 55 (fifty five) years, R/o/Village. Cheptibahal Po. Lebidi, Ps. Sohela Dist. Bargarh
..... ..... ..... Complainant.
The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Panimora Branch, Po. Panimora, Ps. Shela, Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties.
For the Complainant:- Sri R.K.Satpahty, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party:- Sri M.K.Agrawal, Advocate.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r(w).
Dt.17/05/2017 -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Sri P. K. Dash, Member:-
The Complaint is arising out of deficiency in service envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act-1986.
The brief facts of the complaint is narrated below:-
The Complainant contends that the Complainant being a regular customer of the bank vide Saving Bank Account No. 2243300151 having no allegation of repayment of bank dues. That on Dt.30/05/2013 the Complainant availed with a crop loan of Rs. 26,000/-(Rupees twenty six thousand)only bearing Account No. 2243331850 and as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India,(RBI)/National Bank for Agriculture & Rural Development(NABARD), it is mandatory for the bank to deduct the crop insurance amount from the borrowers as in this case, the Opposite party earlier had been deducting the insurance premium amount and for crop damages declared by the Government. The Complainant had also been receiving the compensation amount. Further the complaint contends that during February-2015 the Complainant learnt that, the compensation amount had not been credited to his account by the Opposite Party Bank although Lebidi Gram Panchayat has been declared 48%(forty eight percent) crop failure by the Government for the crop of 2013-14.
Further the complaint reveals that the Complainant contacted four times with the Opposite Party regarding the mater, although no suitable reply was given rather advised him to take the shelter of court. It is the statutory duty of the Opposite Party to insure the crop at the time of finance and the Opposite Party did not insure his crop for land measuring Acre 1.19 which is a service deficiency to the Complainant and the Complainant being a rustic villager became the victim of the same which he modestly calculate to be Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand)only for all miseries he sustained both monetary and mentally.
Further the complaint contends that, the pleader notice Dt. 25/04/2015 of the Complainant was received by the Opposite Party but made no reply and remained silent. The Complainant seeks the redressal of the Forum to direct the Opposite Party to pay compensation for crop damage of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand)only along with interest on the amount with effect from Dt.30/05/2013 and also litigation expenses and compensation for mental agony.
The Complainant in support of his contention relies upon the xerox copies of the following documents.
Copy of Saving Bank Account No. 2243300151, Bank of India, Panimora(2 sheets).
Copy of loan Account No.2243331850, Bank of India, Panimora (2 sheets).
Copy of pleader Notice Dt.25/04/2015 with the acknowledgment (2 sheets).
Guidelines of National Agriculture Insurance Scheme for Khariff crop 2013 (circular No. 5129 Dt.24/06/2013) (5 sheets).
Being noticed the Opposite Party appeared before the Forum through his counsel and filed his version denying all the allegations of the complaint in specific.
The Opposite Party in his version has denied the allegation that the Complainant is a regular customer of the Opposite Party and that he has no allegation regarding the payment of bank dues and that the Complainant on Dt.30/05/2015 availed a crop loan of Rs. 26,000/-(Rupees twenty six thousand)only as per guidelines of R.B.I/NABARD according to which it is mandatory for the Opposite Party to deduct the crop insurance premium amount and that during February-2015 while updating the loan amount the Complainant came to know that the crop insurance compensation amount for the year 2013-14 has not been credited to his account inspite of being declared by the Govt., the Labidi Gram Panchayat as 48% crop damage and that the Complainant contacted four time with the Opposite Party but did not get any suitable reply and has been advised by the Opposite Party to take shelter of the Court and that the Complainant is a rustic villager and the Opposite Party having a statutory duty of insuring the crop of the customer at the time of finance has not done it for his land measuring Ac.1.19 dec of land and that for this negligence of the Opposite Party, the Complainant sustained a loss of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand)only and passing through miseries and that for the deficiency in service of the Opposite Party and for violation of RBI/NABARD guidelines the Complainant sustained loss monetarily and passing through mental agony and that on Dt.25/04/2015 the pleader notice of the Complainant to the Opposite Party is not replied and cause of action arose in the month of February-2015 when the Complainant know about the non receipt of the compensation amount.
The Opposite Party in his version further contends that, he has neither promised nor advertised or agreed to insure the crop of the Complainant at any point of time and that it is a govt policy i.e. National Agriculture Insurance Scheme to provide insurance coverage and financial support to the farmers in the event of failure of any of the notified crop as a result of natural calamity and the financial institutions have been directed to insured the crop of the loanee with the consent of the loanee with out any remuneration or fees hence the Complainant does not come under the services provided by the Opposite Party to it's customer and the Opposite Party Bank providing the service to its customer with out any consideration. That to get the crop insured the loanee of the Opposite Party Bank need to give their consent for insurance of their crop and after getting instruction from the loanee the Opposite Party Bank withdraw money from their account and deposited the same with the notified insurance company.
Further the Opposite Party in his version contends that, for the first time the crops of the Complainant was insured by the Opposite Party on Dt.18/10/2011 and there after the Complainant has refused to withdraw money from his account for payment of insurance premium, by the Opposite Party to the insurance company for which the crop of the Complainant was not insured by the Opposite Party since 2011. That since 2011 the Complainant deposited money in his account several times and also taken loan and after payment of the loan account the previous account were closed and the Complainant has conscious knowledge about non insured of his crop for his refusal to do the same and regularly his account is being inspected by him(Complainant) since 2011. The Opposite Party prayed before the Forum to dismiss the complaint against him.
The Opposite Party to prove his contentions relied upon the xerox copy of the following documents.
Report on performance of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme. (five sheets)
Statement of loan account of the Complainant bearing A/C No. 2243331850. (two sheets)
Gone through the entire case record, heard pleadings of the Parties, perused the documents available in the record, the Forum found the issues likely to be decided in this case as follows:-
Whether the delay in filing the consumer complaint by the Complainant is condonable in the circumstances of the case ?
Whether the Complainant is consumer under the Opposite Party as per the provision of law under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ?
Whether the Opposite Party is liable for deficiency in rendering service to the Complainant ?
For what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
So far as the issue No.1(one) is concerned as per the complaint and version, the Complainant was availed loan on Dt.30/05/2013 by the Opposite Party. The account statement filed by the Complainant as well as Opposite Party reveals that the next date of transaction after the Dt.30/05/2013 by the Complainant in his loan account is 31/03/2014 and as per the defence of the Opposite Party in his version the Complainant was doing transaction in this loan account regularly is presume to be having knowledge of non-sending of insurance premium amount for the year 2013 to the insurance company by the Opposite Party is not acceptable because as per the loan account statement the Complainant ought to have knowledge of the fact that the insurance premium amount for the year 2013 has not been sent to the Insurance Company by the Opposite Party on Dt.31/03/2014 when the Complainant made deposite by self and the acutal cause of action arose on Dt.31/03/2014 and the complaint is filed on Dt.06/07/2015, which is within the limitation period prescribed by the Consumer Protection Act-1986. Hence the citations filed by the Opposite Party regarding limitation as to file the complaint U/s 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act-1986 is totally not applicable and necessary in this case. And the Forum has reasonably condoned the delay. Hence the Issue No.1(one) is answered assertively.
So for as Issue No.2(two) is concerned the allegation of the version that the agricultural scheme of the Govt. is a benevolent and welfare scheme and the Opposite Party Bank is giving the service of this scheme to its customers without receiving any consideration or fee either from the Complainant or from the govt. for which the Complainant is not a consumer U/s 2(d) clause (1) of Consumer Protection Act-1986 under him. Admittedly the Complainant has been availed a crop loan of Rs.26,000/-(Rupees twenty six thousand)only on Dt.30/05/2013 and the account statement of the Complainant in the Opposite Party Bank reveals that the Complainant is a customer of Opposite Party Bank. Every customer of the Bank more specifically borrowers of the Bank aare consumer U/s 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. This contention is supported by a decision reported in Pubjab National Bank Vrs DCDRF Alappazha in W.P(C) No. 5957 of 2011 of Keral High Court. Hence the Complainant is a consumer under the Opposite Party Bank. The Issue No.2(two) is thus answered in assertive.
So far as Issue No.3(two) is concerned as per the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme for Kharif 2013 crop season by its resolution no. 5129/III-CR-27 of 2013 Dt.24/06/2013 as per clause 2, all the farmers growing insurable notified crops are eligible to be covered under two basis i.e. (a) Compulsory basis (b) Voluntary basis and the loanee farmers are covered under compulsory basis, and as per the guidelines of NAIS the insurance premium for the agricultural crop loan to be sent by the financial institutions/Banks to the Insurance Company is compulsory and need no consent from the loanee farmers. The account statement of the Complainant in the Opposite Party Bank, from the contention of the version and the deposition of the Branch Manager of the Opposite Party Bank reveal that the Complainant Iswara Sahu is a regular customer of Opposite Party Bank and has not been declared as NPA ever and for the crop 2011 the insurance premium amount of the Complainant was sent to the insurance company by the Opposite Party and the Complainant got the insurance benefit for the crop failure which is admitted by the Opposite Party in his version as well as memo of argument. The Opposite Party in his version contented that the Complainant has denied to insure his crop for the year 2013. To proof this contention, the Opposite Party has not file any written document of the Complainant as to that effect so also any written document relating to giving consent by the Complainant to the Opposite Party bank to insure his crop for the year 2011 crop season. In the above discussion it is clear and unambiguously reveal that loanee farmers are compulsorily covered under the NAIS scheme of the Govt. and the non sending of insurance premium amount to the Insurance company by the Opposite Party is a shear negligence in rendering service to the Complainant by the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party is liable for deficiency in rendering service to the Complainant as per law envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act-1986. Thus the Issue No.3(three) is answered in assertive.
So for as Issue No.4(four) is concerned the Complainant has fairly and successfully able to come up with the complaint as per provision of law prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act-1986 and the Complainant is entitled for the relief as would be deemed fit by the Forum. Hence Issue No.4(four) is answered as above.
Delving deep into the matter, pleadings, documents and citations available in the case record the Forum unanimously arrived at a decision and order as follows:-
- O R D E R -
The Opposite Party is directed to pay the Complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand)only along with interest @ 6% (six percent) per annum from the date when the govt. declared crop failure for the crop 2013 and also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only for mental agony and litigation expense. The aforesaid order shall be carried out within thirty days from the date of order, failing which interest @ 10% (ten percent) per annum shall be levied against the Opposite Party till the actual date of realization.
The Complaint is this allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, I agree, (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r.
(Ajanta Subhadarsinee) (Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
M e m b e r. P r e s i d e n t.
