For the O.P.No.3 & 4: N O N E.
DATE OF FILING: 25.04.2013
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 16.10.2017
Dr. N. Tuna Sahu, Presiding Member:
The complainant has filed this consumer dispute under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in banking service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he being a farmer by profession earning his livelihood by cultivation, mortgaged his landed property to the extent of Ac.3.000 Dec and took a loan of Rs.28,000/- vide A/c No.805513016000179 and the said amount was sanctioned on 03.08.2011. It is also mentioned in the complaint that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.700/- deducted from the principal amount towards crop insurance and insured his crop. The insurance premium was paid in time as per the order of the Bank authorities, i.e. O.P.No.1 to 4 but they did not send the premium to Government for which the complainant did not get benefit of the crop insurance to the insurance company. It is also mentioned that his crop was affected by drought due to scarcity of water and as per crop survey report 82% of loan was waived by the Government. The complainant deposited the insurance amount of Rs.700/- in time but due to negligence on the part of O.Ps the complainant could not get the insurance benefit. He further mentioned in the complaint that he submitted an application before O.P.No.1 and 3 for necessary action but that also did not yield any result. Due to the latches and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.No.1 to 4 the complainant suffered financially and approached from pillar to post but went in vain. When the O.Ps did not give any heed to his grievance, he filed this consumer complaint before this Forum to recover the loan amount of Rs.28,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of sanction i.e. 03.08.2011 and also prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, inconvenience and cost of litigation in the interest of justice.
3. On notice from this Forum, the O.P.No.1 & 2 appeared in this Forum on 04.07.2013 through learned counsel Sri Prabhat Kumar Padhi, Advocate and Associates and filed written version on 07.10.2013. In the written version it is stated that the contents of the complaint filed by the complainant are all not true and correct and the complainant is put to strict proof of same. The allegation made in the complaints which are not admitted by the O.P.No.1 & 2 are denied. It is stated that prior to 01.11.2012 Utkal Grameen Bank was not in existence at Gangapur, hence it is un-called for to describe O.P.No.2 by his name as the Ex-Branch Manager of UGB, Gangapur. It is also contended that the complainant is to prove that he had paid insurance amount in connection with his claim. The Kishan Card Scheme is sponsored by the Government and for that purpose established the Agricultural Insurance Company of India having Regional Office at Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar represented by its Regional Manager, who used to receive insurance amount relating to crop loan and if requires make payment of insurance amount to the beneficiaries. Hence, it is bad in law for non-joinder of necessary party like the said Insurance Company. It is also stated that soon after receipts of complaint and case notice the O.Ps made inquiry relating to the matter contacted to the Insurance Company over telephone to do the needful, but in reply they intimated over phone that they are to verify and answer. But till today no information is received from them. Under the circumstances the UGB has no liability in the matter. It is also averred that the crop insurance to the farmers is sponsored by Government through Insurance Company and Bank has nothing to do in this connection. The premium, if any, paid relating to crop loan is automatically transferable to the account of said Insurance Agency through computer system and all insurance amount if paid relating to scheme are said to have received by the Government Insurance Company and if requires they used to pay the compensation to the beneficiaries. No Banking Organization is vested with the power of granting any type of insurance to anybody. It is also informed that the complainant has obtained an agricultural loan of Rs.28,000/- from the former RGB Gangapur since 1.11.2012 by executing loan documents and has not paid the amount to the Bank. So, with a bad intention to escape from the liability, suppress the matter relating to receipt of insurance amount for the year 2011. It is also stated that the complainant may approach the Insurance Company and this O.P. has no objection if the said insurance Company paid the insurance claim to the complainant. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the O.Ps are no way liable to meet the claim of the complainant and it is misrepresentation of fact, therefore the complaint is not coming within the purview of Consumer Protection, 1986 and the Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and the O.P. are not properly described in the cause title. For the reason stated above the case before this Forum is not maintainable under the law, facts and circumstances and liable to be dismissed with cost to meet the ends of justice.
4. The Opposite Party No.3 and 4 did not appear and not filed any version hence set as ex-party on 16.12.2015 and the case proceeded against them ex-parte.
5. Today, on 11.10.2017 the case is posted for compliance of order dated 04.10.2016 and 17.01.2017 by the complainant to add a necessary party to the Regional Manager, Agricultural Insurance Company of India, Regional Office at Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007, to this dispute as per the version filed by the O.P.No.1&2 vide para-5. However, despite several opportunities given by this Forum, the complainant did not prefer to add Regional Manager, Agricultural Insurance Company of India, Regional Office at Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007, as a necessary party to this dispute to ascertain the insurance claim of the complainant since as per the version of the O.P.No.1&2, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. In the meantime eight adjournments have already been availed by the complainant consecutively and the complainant has remained absent consecutively from 02.03.2017 till 11.10.2017. This is a year old case relating to 2013 and the complainant does show his interest to proceed with the case and even after repeated directions issued by this Forum he does not want to add the Regional Manager, Agricultural Insurance Company of India, Regional Office at Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007 as a necessary party in this case for proper adjudication of this dispute. Instead of complying the order of the Forum dated 04.10.2016 and 17.01.2017, the complainant filed his written argument on 02.02.2016 and his objection on 17.11.2016. The Forum, therefore, decided to dispose of the matter on merit as per Section 13(2) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
6. On merit, it is not in dispute that the complainant is a loanee vide his loan account No.805513016000179 dated 03.08.2011 who availed a loan amount of Rs.28,000/- from O.P.No.1&2 on mortgage of landed property to the extent of Ac.3.000 Dec. It is also a fact that the present Utkal Grameen Bank was formerly known as Rushikulya Gramya Bank (RGB) which is admitted by the O.P.No.1&2 as per the written version. There is also no doubt or dispute that the complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps who deducted Rs.700/- towards crop insurance of the complainant as is evident from the Annexure –I to III of the documents filed by the complainant. However, in the complaint there is no mention of the name of the insurance company who has received the said premium from the banks. But, it is stated in the written version vide para-5 by the O.P.No.1&2 that the Regional Manager, Agricultural Insurance Company of India, Regional Office at Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007 is a necessary party to this dispute who is also liable to pay the insurance claim of the complainant. Accordingly, considering the fact and circumstance of the case, this Forum on 04.10.2016 directed the complainant to add a party to the said insurance company to corroborate the fact but despite repeated directions he did not prefer to add the insurance company as a necessary party except filing his objection on 17.11.2016 stating that the complainant has not received any insurance claim amount. Thus, the complainant is entitled to get insurance benefit since O.P.No.1 slept over the matter and did not remit insurance premium amount even though deducted from the loan amount and therefore the complainant in his objection petition prayed to pay the relief as prayed in the main complaint. On 17.01.2017 he also filed an amendment petition under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C. to comply the order of this Forum dated 04.10.2016 with a prayer to add the Secretary, Aska Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Aska as a necessary party to this dispute instead of the Regional Manager, Agricultural Insurance Company of India, Regional Office at Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007 as directed by the Forum. On perusal of documents placed on the case record we find that the complainant did not comply the order of this Forum and instead of praying to add Regional Manager, Agricultural Insurance Company of India, Regional Office at Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007, he prayed to add the Secretary, Aska Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Aska which is not necessary to this dispute in this particular case. In the aforesaid peculiar fact and circumstances of the case, in our considered view, it is highly necessary that the Regional Manager, Agricultural Insurance Company of India, Regional Office at Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007 be made a necessary party to this dispute for proper adjudication of the matter. However, the complainant is not interested to proceed with the case and even despite repeated directions given he did not prefer to add the said insurance company as a necessary party, so it is also not feasible for the Forum to decide the matter in the absence of necessary party. In the foregoing fact and circumstances, it will be difficult and prejudice to direct the O.Ps to pay insurance claim of the complainant since the insurance company is also not made a party to this dispute. In view of the above, the O.Ps can’t saddle the responsibility alone for compensating the crop loss of 82% for merely transferring the premium amount to the insurance company. It is also a fact that in this case as per contention of the O.P.No.1&2 the complainant has also not made Insurance Company as a necessary party who has received the premium amount towards crop loan of the complainant. The claim amount of the complainant to be paid by the insurance company but Insurance Company has not been made a party to this dispute. In our considered view, the claim can’t be adjudicated without foundational facts and necessary party to this dispute. Therefore, the prayer of the complainant cannot be accepted and no relief can be granted by this Forum. In view of the above discussion and considering the fact and circumstances of the case, we feel that the complaint of the complainant bears no merit, hence ordered to be dismissed.
7. In the result, we dismissed the case of the complainant against all O.Ps due to devoid of merit and in the peculiar fact and circumstance the parties are directed to bear their cost.
8. The order is pronounced on this day of 16th October 2017 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of this order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
