District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala
Dated this the 18th day of December, 2010
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President
Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member
Date of filing: 23/03/2010
CC No.45/2010
1. Pauli
President, Gomatha Dairy Unit
W/o.Saviour
Door No.10/152
Mettukada, Kozhippara
Vadakarapathy, Chittur Taluk
Palakkad
2. Violet Sahayamary Ruby
Secretary, Gomatha Dairy Unit
W/o.Jacob Thomas
Door No.10/118
Mettukada, Kozhippara
Vadakarapathy, Chittur Taluk
Palakkad
3. Santhakumari
Member, Gomatha Dairy Unit
W/o.Narayanankutty
Door No.10/117
Mettukada, Kozhippara
Vadakarapathy, Chittur Taluk
Palakkad
4. Hridhayapushpam
Member, Gomatha Dairy Unit
W/o.Hridhayaswami
Door No.10/146
Mettukada, Kozhippara
Vadakarapathy, Chittur Taluk
Palakkad
5. K.Kuzhanthai Therasu
Member, Gomatha Dairy Unit
W/o.Hridhayaswami
Thadikkaran House, Door No.10/148
Mettukada, Kozhippara
Vadakarapathy, Chittur Taluk
Palakkad.
6. Rubi
Member, Gomatha Dairy Unit
W/o.Yesudas
Njanamuthan House, Door No.10/156
Mettukada, Kozhippara
Vadakarapathy, Chittur Taluk
Palakkad.
7. Gracy
Member, Gomatha Dairy Unit
W/o.Joseph
Thadikkaran House, Door No.10/142
Mettukada, Kozhippara
Vadakarapathy, Chittur Taluk
Palakkad.
8. Annamma Alees
Member, Gomatha Dairy Unit
W/o.Alex Balavendran
Njanamuthan House, Door No.10/166
Mettukada, Kozhippara
Vadakarapathy, Chittur Taluk
Palakkad.
9. Asanthamary
Member, Gomatha Dairy Unit
W/o.Hridayaraj
Vandazhikaran, Door No.10/144
Mettukada, Kozhippara
Vadakarapathy, Chittur Taluk
Palakkad. - Complainants
(By Adv.S.Saviour for all complainants)
Vs
The Branch Manager
Indian Bank
Vadakaarapathy Branch
Vadakarapathy Panchayat
1st Floor,Anu Shopping Complex
Kozhinjampara
Chittur Taluk
Palakkad. - Opposite party
(By Adv.S.M.Unnikrishnan)
O R D E R
By Smt.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT
Case of the complainants:
Complainants are members of Gomatha Dairy Unit working under the control of Palakkad District Kudumbasree Unit. On 14/11/2006 complainants 9 in number along with one Rajinameri who is the complainant in the connected case No.165/2009 availed loan for an amount of Rs.1,68,000/- out of which Rs.84,300/- was the Govt. subsidy, Rs.16,800/- Grama panchayat subsidy and Rs.8,430/- beneficiary portion. So an amount of Rs.59,010/- was the actual amount disbursed by the bank. According to the complainants, opposite party has deducted an amount of Rs.1,000/- from each member for covering insurance for the cows which are insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Nemmara Branch. On 14/4/2009 one of the member named Rajinamary’s cow died due to sun stroke and she claimed insurance amount from the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. But at that time it was revealed that the opposite party has not insured the cows of the complainants with the Insurance Company. When the complainants enquired with the opposite party bank regarding non-payment of insurance premium, opposite party behaved in a rude manner. According to complainants the act of opposite party amounts to clear deficiency in service on their part. Hence complainants claim Rs.9,000/- being the insurance premium paid by all the complainants along with Rs.45,000/- as compensation from the opposite party.
Opposite party admits that the loan was sanctioned to the complainants being the members of Gomatha Dairy Unit, but denies all the other allegations leveled against the opposite party. According to opposite party, they have not deducted any amount from the complainants by way of premium of insurance policy. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and hence opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to complainants. According to opposite party it is the complainants who has defaulted in payment of loan amount. Opposite party has already filed a complaint numbered 652/2009 for realizing dues. Hence no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
The evidence led by the parties consists of the chief affidavit of both parties. Exts.A1 to A4 marked on the side of complainants. No documentary evidence on the part of opposite party.
Issues that arise for consideration are;
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?
Issues 1 & 2:
It is admitted fact that complainants have availed loan from the opposite party. The fact of payment of insurance premium by the complainants is not revealed from any of the documents produced by the complainants. Further in the statement of accounts produced by the opposite party in the connected case No.165/2009 wherein one of the member of the Gomatha Dairy Unit is the complainant also shows that no amount has been deducted towards the premium. The said statement of account also reveals the fact that no amount was received by the opposite party on account of insurance premium. But the said documents shows that the members subsequently insured on 10.10.2009. By virtue of clause 2.14 of the general conditions in sanctioning credit:
“All assets charged to the bank (except for the assets exempted from insuring in certain loan products/schemes) shall be adequately insured against all attendant risks at the expense of the borrower(s). The insurance policy with bank clause (viz bank as mortgage, hypothecate or pledge as the case may be) shall be lodged with the bank”.
Opposite party ought to have compelled the complainants to avail insurance at the time of disbursement of the loan itself. The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
Complainants have claimed Rs.9,000/- being the amount paid by way of premium and Rs.45,000/- as compensation. As per evidence 9,000/- is not collected by opposite party. Further no evidence is adduced for the loss suffered to the tune of Rs.45,000/-. In fact no loss as such is suffered by the complainants. Since there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, complainants are entitled for a nominal amount by way of compensation. Hence complaint allowed.
We direct the opposite party to pay each complainant an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) for the deficiency in service and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings. Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 18th day of December, 2010
Sd/-
Smt.Seena.H,
President
Sd/- Smt.Preetha.G.Nair,
Member
Appendix
Witnesses examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witnesses examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of letter dt.18/08/2006 sent by Kudumbasree Charge Officer to opposite
party
Ext.A2 (Series) – Photocopy of pass book
Ext.A3 – Copy of lawyer notice sent by opposite party to complainant
Ext.A4 – Reply notice sent by complainant to opposite party
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Cost (allowed)
Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only)
