View 24808 Cases Against Bank Of India
View 24808 Cases Against Bank Of India
Sri Swapan Kumar Mandal filed a consumer case on 19 Apr 2013 against The Manager, United Bank of India in the Paschim Midnapore Consumer Court. The case no is CC/140/2012 and the judgment uploaded on 24 Oct 2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.
Complaint case No.140/2012 Date of disposal: 19/04/2013
BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT : Mr. K. S. Samajder.
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. S. Das & Mr. M.K. Choudhury. Advocate.
Swapan Kumar Mandal all of Vill-Tabageria, P.O.-Marotola, P.S.-Debra, Dist-Paschim
Medinipur …………Complainants.
Vs.
1) The Manager, United Bank of India, Marotola branch, P.O.-Marotola, P.S.-Debra, Dist-
Paschim Medinipur
2) The Regional Manager of Agricultural Insurance Company India Ltd., at OM Tower 5th
Floor, 32, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700071………Ops.
The case of the complainants, in a nut shell, is that they took crops loan from Boro cultivation from the Op.no.1 for the year, 2008-2009. Due to virus infection in the area all crops have been damaged to a great extent. The incident was informed to the Op. no.1, and other authorities. The loan was linked with crop insurance benefit. Accordingly the complainants lodged this insurance claim before the Op. no.1. Although the Op. no.1 received the insurance benefit from the Op. no.2. but the complainants were not given the benefit. On 26/06/2012 the complainants filed their claim in writing to the Op. no.1 but the Op. no.1 did not adjust the amount of Insurance benefit against their loan account no.UKC-209. So the complainants. Prayed for adjustment of the amount the insurance claim against their loan account and for other relief’s.
The Ops. contested the case by filing separate written objections.
The Op. no.1 in his W.O. contended, interalia, that the complainants took Kishan Credit Card loan on 09/01/2008 for cultivation of potato during the boro season of 2007 - 2008. Further contention of the Op. no.1 of that the complainants took loan for business purpose and as such they are not consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Op.no.1 specially
Contd…………..P/2
- ( 2 ) -
contended that the loan was taken by the complainants on 09/01/2008 under loan account no.KCC-2009/2003. The loan was for the Rabi season 2007 - 2008 and the complainants can not get the insurance claim for the loss of crops in the Rabi season 2008 - 2009. The Op. no.1 categorically claimed that the present case is barred by limitation and as such the Op. no.1 prayed for dismissed of the case.
The Op. no.2 in its W.O. contended that as per arrangement made with the Op-Bank inview of Govt. circular there was certain formula for assessment of loss and depending upon that formula. This Op. paid the amount of Insurance to the Op. no.1 and it was for the Op. no.1 to satisfy the claim of the complainants, if found to be justified. So this Op. also prayed for dismissal of the case.
It is now to be seen as to whether the complainants are entitled to get the relief as claimed.
Decisions with reasons
On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it appears to be an admitted position that the complainants took crop loan from the Op-Bank. The complainants contended that they took loan during the year, 2008 - 2009. The Op-Bank in its W.O. specifically stated that the loan was taken by the complainants on 09/01/2008, i.e. for the Rabi season-2007 - 2008 (1st October, 2007 to 31st March, 2008). During hearing it could not be denied on behalf of the complainants that the complainants took loan on 09/01/2008. So, it is clear that the loan was taken for the Rabi season of 2007 - 2008.
The case of the complainants is that there was damage of crop during the year 2008 -2009. The Op. no.1 contended that under the scheme the cultivators who took loan during the Rabi season 2008 - 2009, were to get the insurance benefit for damage of crop during that year. This position could not be disputed by the complainants during the time of hearing of this case. Therefore, it is clear that the complainants were not within the entitled category of cultivators as they took loan in the previous year during which there was no provision of Insurance of crop.
Now if we assume for a moment that the complainants were entitled to Insurance claim for damage of crop during the Rabi season 2008 - 2009, still then, the claim is time barred because the case has been filed well beyond the prescribed period of 2 years u/s-24A Consumer Protection Act 1986. Not only that, the first claim was made by the complaint to the Op-Bank on 02/06/2012 i.e. beyond the period of 2 years. In this case the complainants have not stated a single word about the delay in filing the complaint and there was no prayer made by the complainant for condonation of the delay. We find that the case is hopelessly by barred by limitation.
Under the above facts and circumstances, the complainants are not entitled to any relief and the case is liable to be dismissed.
Contd…………..P/3
- ( 3 ) -
Hence, it is,
Ordered,
that the case be dismissed on contest but considering the circumstances, with out any order as to cost.
Parties be supplied the copy of Judgement free of cost.
Dic. & Corrected by me
President Member Member President
District Forum
Paschim Medinipur.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.