Complainant/s:              Shri. Rudrayya S/o Shivanandayya                                                  Puranikmath, Age:46, Occ: Agriculturist.

                                                R/o Putgaonbadni                                                                            Tq:Shirahatti Dist:Gadag.

                                                (Rep. by Sri.R.S.Hattikal Advocate)   

V/s

JUDGEMENT

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. RAJU.N.METRI, MEMBER

The complainant has filed the complaint U/Sec.35 of the C.P. Act, 2019 for refund the crops insurance claim amount and close the S.B bank A/c of complainant  with @ 12% p.a., Rs.2,50,000/-  towards mental agony with cost.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

         The complainant is the consumer of OP No.2, OP No.1 is the head office of Op No.2. Complainant is having S.B A/C No.69529003096“2” and balance of Rs.65,737/- in the account.  During the year 2015 crop insurance amount of Rs.23,080/- is released by insurance Company. On 09.01.2020 the complainant applied for issuance of cheque book. One Fhakirayya Siddayya Puranikmath gave an objection to OP No.2 stating that, R.S.A No.5949/12 is pending before Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and an interim stay is granted  not to alienate the said schedule property. Later an application was filed to transfer his account to K.C.C Bank Ranebennur. Op No.2 did not issue the cheque book nor transferred the account. Finally, legal notice was issued on 19.06.2020 to Op No.2 for which he has not replied.  Thus, Ops have committed the deficiency of service, Hence, filed this complaint.

          3.       After admitting the complaint, notices were issued to the OPs.  OP No.1& 2 appeared through their counsel and filed the written version.

          4.       The brief facts of written version filed by OP No.2 are as under:

          OP No.2 denied the various allegations and admitted that, complainant is having the S.B A/C No.695290030962 instead of 69529003096. Ops contended that,  brother of complainant Fhakirayya had filed objection not to disburse the crop insurance claim amount granted in favour of the complainant, stating that, he has filed suit O.S. No.150/04 and same came to be decreed by awarding ¼ share, the  complainant preferred appeal in R.A.No.48/09 and the same came to be decreed. Fhakirayya preferred R.S.A. No.5949/12 and interim stay has been granted for directing the complainant not to alienate the schedule property. Hence, Op No.2 did not issue the cheque book, as the suit land is involved in judicial proceedings and Op No.2 bank has given the reply letter dtd:29.02.2020 to the application dtd:09.01.2020 of complainant.  Further, Op No.2 Bank contended that they used  to sanction crop loan by issuing cheque bearing No.051822 dtd:21.03.2012 and 051820 dtd:15.01.2013 to put the signature, but complainant instead of returning the cheque mis-utilised  the  cheque and issued the same for payment to third party, and both cheques had been dishonored. So, the acts of the complainant has got bad image to Op bank. No deficiency of service is committed by Ops. Hence, seeks dismissal of the complaint.  

          5.       To prove the case, the complainant has filed affidavit evidence and was examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 and Smt. Drakshayani for Op No.2 has filed affidavit evidence and was examined as RW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.OP-1 to  Ex.OP-4.

6.       Heard the argument on both sides.

          7.       The points for our consideration arose are as under:

          i)        Whether the complainant proves that, there is a                      deficiency of service committed by the OPs?

          ii)       Whether the complainant proves that, he is                            entitled for the relief?

          iii)      What order?

          8.       Our findings on the above points are as under:   

                   Point No.1: In the affirmative.

                   Point No.2: In the partly affirmative. 

                   Point No.3: As per final order.

          REASONS

          9.       Point No.1 & 2:- The points are taken together to avoid the repetition of facts. The learned counsel for complainant argued that, as per evidence of PW-1 and Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13, complainant proved the case. The learned counsel for Ops argued that, no deficiency of service is committed by the Ops.

          10.     On careful perusal of the materials placed before us, PW-1 has filed affidavit in-lieu of his chief examination and reiterated the contents of the complaint.  PW-1 has stated that, complainant is having S.B A/C No.69529003096 “2” and balance of Rs.65,737/- is in the account.  During the year 2015 crop insurance amount of  Rs.23,080/- is released by insurance Co. On 09.01.2020 the complainant applied for issuance of cheque book. One Fhakirayya Siddayya Puranikmath gave an objection to OP No.2 stating that, R.S.A. No.5949/12 is pending before Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and an interim stay is granted  not to alienate the said schedule property. Later an application was filed to transfer  his account to K.C.C Bank Ranebennur. Op No.2 did not issue the cheque book  nor transferred the account. Finally, legal notice was issued on 19.06.2020 to Op No.2 for which he has not replied.  Thus, Ops have committed the deficiency of service, 

          11. Per contra, RW-1 has filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of the written version filed by OP-2. RW-1 has stated that, brother of complainant Fhakirayya had filed objection not to disburse the crop insurance claim amount granted in favour of the complainant. Stating that, he has filed suit O.S. No.150/04 and same came to be decreed by awarding ¼ share, the  complainant preferred an Appeal in R.A.48/09 and the same came to be decreed. Fhakirayya preferred R.S.A. No.5949/12 and interim stay has been granted directing the complainant not to alienate the schedule property. Hence, Op No.2 did not issue the cheque book, as the suit land is involved in judicial proceedings and Op No.2 bank has given the reply letter dtd:29.02.2020 to the application dtd:09.01.2020 of complainant.  Op No.2 Bank further contended that they used  to sanction crop loan by issuing cheque bearing No.051822 dtd:21.03.2012 and 051820 dtd:15.01.2013 to put the signature, but the complainant instead of returning the cheque mis-utilised  the  cheque and issued the same for payment to third party and both cheques had been dishonored. So, the acts of the complainant has got bad image to Op No.2 bank. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service committed by the Ops.

          12.   At the very outset, RW-1 is not disputing that, the complainant is having a S.B A/C and crop insurance amount is released by Insurance Company in favour of complainant. The main contention is that, brother of the complainant filed an objection not to release the crop insurance amount and cheque book to complainant as interim stay order is granted in R.S.A. Ex.C-1 application given to Op No.2 for issuance of cheque book on 09.01.2020.  Ex.C-3 letter issued by Op No.2 stating that, they will furnish the Bank statement, if the required charges will be borne and refused to issue cheque book due to objection filed by Fakkirayya Puranikmath vide reference No.2 as stay order granted in the R.S.A. It is pertinent note here that, the said Fakkirayya Puranikmath filed objection on 07.10.2016 as per reference No.2 mentioned in Ex.C-3. But, complainant filed application Ex.C-1 after more than three and half  years on 09.01.2020. So, the contention of Op No.2 that, due to objection filed by Fakkirayya Puranikamath, Cheque book was not issued  cannot be believable, as complainant did not file application to issue cheque book  prior to objection dtd:07.10.2016 filed by Fakkirayya. It is not possible Fakkirayya filed objection in the year 2016 not to issue cheque book to complainant, as no application was filed for issuance of cheque book by the complainant at the time of filing the objection. Even, Op No.2 has not produced the said objection filed by Fakkirayya to prove the contention taken in the written version. The counsel for complainant filed notification dtd:09.11.2017 issued by Reserve Bank of India. It reveals that, RBI issued directions to all scheduled Commercial Banks (Including RRBs), all small finance banks and payments banks and in para No.2 (C) stated as under:-

(c) Cheque Book Facility

(i) Banks shall issue cheque books to customers, whenever as request is received, through a requisition slip which is part of the cheque book issued earlier.

(ii) Bank are advised to provide minimum 25 cheque leaves every year, if requested, in savings bank account, free of charge.

(iii) Banks shall not insist on physical presence of any customer including senior citizens and differently abled persons for getting cheque books.

(iv) Banks may also issue cheque books, on requisition, by any other mode as per bank’s laid down policy.

          It is further clarified that providing such facility in BSBDA will not render the account to be classified as non-BSBDA (c.f. Bank’s response to query number 14 and 24 of our circular “DBOD No.Leg.BC.52/09.07.005/2013-14 dated September 11, 2013 on Financial inclusion-Access to Banking Service-BSBDA-FAQs”)

          13. For the above direction Op No.2 shall issue cheque books to complainant through a requisition slip which is part of the cheque book issued earlier, in saving bank account free of charge. So, RBI directions are binding upon Op No.2 as it comes under small finance banks and payments banks. So, the conduct of the Op No.2 refusing to issue cheque book is not proper and correct. It is the duty of the OP No.2 to protect the interest of the customer and provide proper service. Instead of rendering service to the account holder of the bank, Op No.2 refused to supply cheque book and refused on the application given by third party.  The conduct and contention taken by Op No.2 clearly goes to show that, they are more interested to protect the interest of third party, instead of bonafied customer. So, non-issuance of the cheque book to the complainant is a blunder mistake and fault committed by the Op No.2. Thus, complainant proved that, Ops have committed the deficiency of service. 

14. Ex.C-2 application given by complainant to the Op No.2 for supply of copy of objection and stay order filed by his brother Fakkirayya. However, Op No.2 has issued Ex.C-4 letter stating that, there is no any scope for further correspondence unnecessarily. Instead of suppling the copy of objection filed by Fakkirayya and stay order, Op No.2 issued Ex.C-4. Ex.C-5 order sheet in R.S.A. No.5949/12 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench, Dharwad reveals that, respondents are directed not to alienate the suit schedule property. Ex.C-6 legal notice issued by complainant. Ex.C-7 & Ex.C-8 postal receipts. Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 are Postal acknowledgments.  Ex.C-11 application given by complainant for transfer of the account. Ex.C-12 objection filed by complainant. Ex.C-13 another application issued by complainant all the documents are not disputed by the Ops. Ex.OP-1 letter issued to Op No.2 by Op No.1. Ex.OP-2 reply issued to complainant. Ex.Op-3 passbook of S.B A/C of complainant and Ex.Op-4 order sheet which are not disputed by the parties.

          15.    As per Ex.Op-4 stay order was issued by Hon’ble High Court in respect of Complainant/Respondent and are directed not to alienate the said suit schedule properties. So, it is crystal clear that, interim stay order was granted in R.S.A. No.5949/12 in respect of schedule property and no stay order was granted in respect of crop insurance amount to be released in favour of complainant which cannot be disbursed to the complainant.   Stay order is binding upon the complainant only in respect of not to alienate schedule property, but its not against withdrawing the crops insurance amount credited by Insurance Company in his S.B A/C. In the complaint also simply stated that, complainant paid premium amount of Rs.1,484/- for the year 2015 in Kharif season of  Groundnut crop. As per guidelines, crop insurance may be insured not only by owner, but also by who is actual cultivating the land. So, the act of Op No.2 not permitting the complainant to withdraw his amount deposited in the account is not proper and correct. Even, Ex.C-5 stay order issued on 11.10.2012,  Op No.2 simply stated  in the written version that, stay order is inforce and case is pending. But, he has not produced to show that, stay order granted in the year 2012 is still in existence in R.S.A. and is pending.  Moreover, Op No.2 is not a party to the said Civil matter between the complainant and his brother Fakkirayya. Even, though Op No.2 is not a  party, but details about dispute in respect of Civil case, stating that, Suit filed by Fakkirayya in O.S. No.150/2004 came to be decreed,  by awarding 1 ¼ share. Against the said decree complainant preferred an appeal in R.A. No.48/2009 and same came to be allowed against said Judgment and Fakkirayya preferred R.S.A. No.5949/2012. So, it appears that, Op NO.2 acted as per the instruction and advise by third party Fakkirayya.

          16. Another contention of Op No.2 is that, two cheques were miss-used by complainant and said cheuqes were dishonored as far as this contention is concerned, no documents are produced, except simply stated in the written version. Even, no documents are produced to show that, what action has been taken against the complainant for mis-utilising the said cheques. Thus, Op No.2 has raised untenable objections and false objection against complainant, instead of  providing proper service to the customer. Therefore, complainant has proved that, Ops have committed the deficiency of service.

17. For the above, complainant has proved that, he is entitled for the crop insurance amount released in favour of complainant by Insurance Company a  sum of Rs.23,080/- and also cheque book. Complainant is claiming interest at the rate of 12 % p.a. which is on higher side.  So, as per rate of interest in the Nationalized Bank it is proper to award interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of issuance of  Ex.C-3 dated:29.02.2020 refused by Op No.2 till realization.  Complainant has suffered mental agony. So, complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of the complaint. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 in the partly affirmative.

          18.    POINT No. 3: In the result, we pass the following:

//O R D E R//

              The complaint filed U/Sec.35 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is partly allowed against Ops.

Complainant is entitled a sum of Rs.23,080/- with interest at 9% p.a. since 29.02.2020 till realization and also cheque book.

Further, the complainant is entitled for Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litigation.

Op No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. Op No.2 is directed to pay a sum ofRs.23,080/- and also directed to issue cheque book within a one month from the date of this order.

Office is directed to send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

         (Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Court on this 21^st  day of January-2023)

,            

(Shri Raju N. Metri)      (Shri. D.Y. Basapur)   (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)

        MEMBER                 PRESIDENT              WOMAN MEMBER

-: ANNEXURE :-

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S:

PW-1: Shri. Rudrayya S/o Shivanandayya                                                            Puranikmath,

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 Copy of letter from complainant issued to the Manager

           Karnataka Central Co-OP. Bank. Ltd., Dharwad.

Ex.C-2:Copy of letter from complainant issued to the Manager Central   

           Co-OP. Bank Dharwad.

Ex.C-3: & 4 Copy of letters from Co-OP. Bank issued to the

            complainant.

Ex.C-5: Copy of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad RSA

             No.5949/12 order sheet Part-I.

Ex.C-6 : Legal notice.

Ex.C-7 & 8: Postal receipts.

Ex.C-9 & 10:Postal acknowledgments.

Ex.C-11: Letter from complainant issued to K.C.C. Bank Laxmeshwar

              Branch.

Ex.C-12:Letter from complainant issued to Central Co-OP. Bank,

              Dharwad. Laxmeshwar, Branch, Dist:Gadag.

Ex.C-13: Letter from the complainant issued to the Karnataka central   

              Co-OP. Bank, Ltd., Dharwad Laxmeshwar branch,  

              Laxmeshwar.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

RW-1: Smt. Drakshayani D/o Sarvottam Belagavi

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.OP-1:Copy of letter from K.C.C.Bank Ltd. Dharwad issued to the

             Branch Manager, Laxmeshwar.

Ex.OP-2 : Copy of letter from Karnataka Central Co-OP. Bank

               Ltd, Chief Office Dharwad issued to the complainant

Ex.OP-3 :Copy of complainants A/c No.13/49 maintained by OP No.1

              Bank.

Ex.Op-4: Copy of interim order passed in R.S.A No.5949/2012

              dtd:11.10.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Higher Court of 

              Karnataka, Dharwad, Bench.

(Shri Raju N. Metri)    (Shri. D.Y. Basapur)   (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)

        MEMBER                 PRESIDENT              WOMAN MEMBER