Date of filing:- 12/03/2015

Date of Order:- 27/01/2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Dispute Case No. 15 of 2015.

Ujal Sahu, son of late Bihari Sahu, aged about 58(fifty eight) years, resident of, and P.O. Khuntapali, Ps/Dist. Bargarh.

..... ..... ....... Complainant.

• V e r s u s -

1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, (A.D.B), Branch, Bargarh.

2. The Field Officer, S.B.I. (A.D.B), Bargarh, the Branch Office of which is established at Bargarh, At/Po/Ps/Munsif/Dist. Bargarh.

..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :- Sri S.P. Mishra, Advocate with other Advocates.

For the Opposite Parties :- Sir D. Mishra, Advocate with other Advocates.

-: P R E S E N T :-

Mrs Anjali Behera ..... ..... ..... .... M e m b e r.(w)I/c President.

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ......... ..... M e m b e r.

Dt.27/01/2016. -: J U D G E M E N T:-

Presented by Smt. Anjali Behera, Member(w) I/c President.

Brief description of the Complaint:-

Complainant files this complaint against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency of service and claims suitable compensation for the losses and problems caused by the Opposite Parties. Complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Parties and availed crop loan for Kharif Crop-2013. Govt declared insurance benefits to 'fylin' affected area and according Complainant is entitled to get the same insurance premium has been duly deducted from the sanctioned loan amount. But Complainant did not allowed to draw the benefits that is 48.95% declared for the 'fylin' affected crop loss even though covered through insurance paying the rightfull premium amount of the total amount of loan @ 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only INR.

Complainant files xerox copy of the pages of pass book showing deduction of insurance premium and relies on the same to establish their case.

Being admitted Opposite Parties were noticed along with copy of Complaint petition to file their say in the shape of written statement. Opposite Parties appeared and filed their version jointly on 19/08/2015 denying all the charges made against them and prayed dismissal of the Complainant.

Opposite Parties have filed the following documents and relied on them to substantiate their stand.

1. Copy of account statement from the loan account in issue.

2. Details of availed insurance benefits by Ujal Sahu through Sarasara SCS for the period in issue.

    

Heard the matter on 22/09/2015 where in both the Parties have substantiated their individual stands in great detail referring to the documents filed by them.

After careful hearing of the submission of the parties perusal of the petitions and documents filed and attached to the case record following points come out as deciding factor for the Complaint.

1. Complainant has availed the loan of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only from the Opposite Parties for Kharif Crop-2013, which is not disputed and documents affirm the fact.

2. The xerox copy of pass book pages by the Complainant do not show any premium deduction for loan for Kharit Crop-2013. The same thing is with the account statement filed by the Opposite Parties for the same account, which too do not show any deduction for insurance premium. Opposite Parties have also filed another account statement for another Adikanda Pradhan to how premium deduction is reflected if done through the account and denied that Complainant had insured their crop of Kharif-2013 through them.

3. Another document filed by the Opposite Parties shows loan taken by Ujal Sahu and another from Sarsara SCS and been already availed insurance benefit amounting to Rs.41,118/-(Rupees forty one thousand one hundred eighteen)only by Ujal Sahu for Kharif Crop-2013 for land Mauza Khutpali, Khata 585, 370/125 and 42 and respective area 4.57 acres, 0.89 acres and 0.31 acres. But the person who gave this document is not produced before the Forum to prove this documents. Neither Complainant raised any question to the same.

4. The Complaint petition do not reflect for which landed property he availed this loan of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only for Kharif-2013 neither the documents filed as account statement by the Opposite Parties shows such information.

5. No any documents has been filed to ascertain whether the same land can be insured paying required premium through different insurers. But ethically and proper principle certainly will be tendering insurance benefit for crop of a particular land once.

6. From the documents filed by the Parties the allegation of the Complainant that the Opposite Parties have deducted crop insurance amount for Kharif-2013 from his account is not true neither Complainant was able to prove through other document about any such deduction. At the same time it is also true that for every crop loan on agricultural loan advanced the Banks are to safeguard the financed amount by securing the crops through insurance and why no such step is taken in this case is not answered. As after allegation against Opposite Parties they only have enquired the matter and that too after filing of the case.

7. Complainant have also admitted taking loan from Sarsara SCS and being granted the insurance benefits declared by the Govt for Kharif-2013.

Under the facts and circumstances discussed above the complaint is devoid of any merit.

O R D E R

Stands dismissed having no merit.

Opposite Parties are exonerated from charges levelled against them.

No costs. Disposed accordingly.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

( Smt. Anjali Behera)

I agree, M e m b e r. I/c President.

(Sri. Pradeep Kumar Dash)

M e m b e r.