West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/63/2013

Indrajit Ghosh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

31 Oct 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 Complaint case No.63/2013                                                         Date of disposal: 31/10/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.              

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. A.K. Dutta, Advocate.

 For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. B.Raj & Mr. M.K. Chowdhury, Advocate.                                   

          

 Indrajit Ghosh, S/o Late Nitai Ghosh, of vill. Radhanagar,  P.O.- Karashia,  P.S. - Chandrakona, Dist- Paschim Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1)The Manager, State Bank of India, Ghatal Branch, P.O & P.S.- Ghatal, Dist- Paschim Medinipur,Pin- 721212

2) Regional Manager of Agricultural Insurance Company India Ltd. At Om Tower, 5^th Floor, 32Chowringhee Road,(Near Park Street Metro Station), Kolkata-700071(W.B.)...……………Ops.

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

          The case of the complainant case in a nutshell is that the complainant is a small cultivator owner of two acre of land.

          He took loan of Rs.67000/- from the Op No.1 SBI.

          The complainant customer of SBI in his account received the money from potato insurance in the year 2011-12 of rs.3064.60/- as insurance premium and Op Bank SBI issued (Kishan Credit Card) in favour of the complainant.

         After receiving the loan the complainant started cultivation of potato in his own land in the year 2012.  But cultivation of potato has been highly damaged due to various infection in the area.  All cultivators of the area including the complainant informed the concern Panchayat BDO Agriculture Office and the Op No.1 Bank about the damage of potato.

            After investigation by the investigating agent of Panchayat BDO Agricultural Dept. and Govt. of West Bengal, a re part about 80% damage of potato has been submitted before the Op No.2.  Agricultural Insurance Co. for settlement of Insurance benefit for adjusting the loan account.

Through, accordingly the Op Bank received the insurance benefit from the Op No.2 Insurance Co.  but still now Op No.1 did not adjust the Insurance benefit in the loan account of the complainant.  Op No.1 has right to withhold the insurance benefit of the complainant.  The 

Contd………….P/2

 

                                                                                                ( 2 ) -

 

complainant states that they have every right to the insurance benefit as per law.

Thus the complainant is forced to file the complaint before the Hon’ble Forum to settle the dispute as Consumer Protection Act.

The Op Nos. 1 & 2 contested the case by filing written objection and argument.

Ld. Lawyer for the Op No.1 argued that no money towards compensation and the insurance benefit has been received by the Op No.1 from the Op No.2 although insurance premium of Rs.2211.00/- was paid to the Op No.2 on 31/01/2012 towards the insurance premium of the complainant.

Ld. Lawyer in this matter has pointed out that reminder through the letter 16/05/2013 regarding the payment of compensation/insurance benefit to the complainant was sent but still today Op No.2 kept themselves silent without any reply to the Op No.1.

Op also states that Op No.1 has no contractual relation towards the payment of insurance benefit to the farmer except in the payment of insurance premium by debiting the farmer loan account.  In that event Op states that Op No.1 has failed the same diligently to the Op No.2.

            Here Op No.1 also denied the allegation made in Para 5 & 6 of the complainant and Op No.1 also denied that they have received the Insurance benefit of the complainant from Op No.2.  So, Op No.1 has no liability to payment of insurance benefit to any insured.  Op has only liability for payment of premium by debiting  the loan account of the lonee.  Op No.1 has paid the premium in terms of the scheme of the Central Govt.  So, the Op No.2 should be directed to pay the insurance benefit to the complainant through Op No.1.

            Ld. Lawyer for the Op No.2 argued that they are the Central Public Institution delaying with public exchequer and are comply with the scheme formulated b y the Govt. of India.

            In that for mulac claim has been settled and there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Op Co.

            The complainant replaced that they have paid the premium with a view to insure potato crop.  The complainant alleged that no relief/claim have been secured.  Ld. Lawyer for the Op claims that Op as per scheme and guideline of NAIS has already disbursed the payable non for the crop as mentioned in the petition of complaint.  So, there is no deficiency of service.  Therefore, the complainant case should be dismissed.          

           Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

  Issues:

1. Whether the Ops are in deficiency in service within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(g) read with Sec.2(1) of the Consumer Protection Act?

Contd………….P/3

 

 

                                                                                                                  ( 3 ) -

2. Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?
3. Whether  the complainants are entitle to get Insurance benefit?

 

Decisions with reasons.

 

All the issues are taken up for decision.

Ld. Lawyer for the Op.No.1 argued that no money towards compensation and the insurance benefit by the Op.No.1 from Op.No.2 although insurance premium of Rs. 2,211.00 was paid to the Op.No.2 on 31/01/2012 towards the insurance premium of the Complainant.

Ld. Lawyer for the Op.No.1 also denied that they have no liability of payment of insurance benefit to any insure. But their only liability is that to debit the loan A/C of the lonee. Ld. Lawyer for the Op.No.1 admits that the Op has paid the premium in terms of the scheme of the central/State Govt. to the Op No.2.  So, it is the liability of the Op No.2 to pay the Insurance benefit to the complainant.

  Now we are to decide who is liable to satisfy the claim of the complainant in terms of his prayer made in the petition of the complainant. 

  Upon careful consideration of the entire evidence so far available on record it appears that there is no cogent and reliable evidence to show that the Op insurance has paid insurance benefit in favour of the complainant.  Through the Op/State Bank of India.

  Thus for want of evidence we cannot accept the plea of Op no.2 Insurance Company.  As a result, the complainants are entitled to get relief as prayed for.

  All the points are disposed of accordingly.

  The complainant should get insurance benefit for adjustment of the loan in the Op/State Bank.

  Hence, ordered, that the case be and the same is allowed on contest without cost.

  The complainant do get compensation of Rs.48,000/- (Forty eight thousand) only payable by the Op No.2 to the OP No.1 within sixty days from the date of this order.

  Op  No.1 is hereby directed to adjust the loan amount in favour of the complainant accordingly.  

Dic. & Corrected by me

             Sd/-                                      Sd/-                                                        Sd/-

         Member                               Member                                                President

                                                                                                               District Forum

                                                                                                            Paschim Medinipur.