Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/63

RAM NARAYAN PANDIT - Complainant(s)

Versus

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

SH. MACHAL SINGH MEENA

05 Dec 2018

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                             FIRST APPEAL NO. 63 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 23.12.2015 passed in C.C.No.48/2014 by the District Forum, Raisen)    

 

RAMNARAYAN,

S/O SHRI PHOOL SINGH,

R/O BANDOLI GOPALPUR,

POST-BAMHORI GODAD, TEHSIL-GAIRATGANJ,

DISTRICT-RAISEN (M.P.)                                                                                              …          APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

MANAGER,

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,

BRANCH-GAIRATGANJ, TEHSIL-GAIRATGANJ,

DISTRICT-RAISEN (M.P.)                                                                                           …         RESPONDENT.

                          

 

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. D. AGARWAL                    :    PRESIDING MEMBER  

                  HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK            :    MEMBER

         

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

      Appellant Ramnarayan is present in person.

      None for the respondent.

                                                                   

                                                            O R D E R

                                       (Passed On 05.12. 2018)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by S. D. Agarwal, Member:

 

                        This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred by the complainant against the order dated 23.12.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raisen in C.C.No.48/2014 by which the complaint of the complainant has been dismissed.

3.                     Brief facts of the case as narrated by the complainant are that he is a holder of Kisan Credit Card (KCC) account no. 3077120613 since 2010 in the opposite party/respondent bank. According to the complainant, he regularly made transaction in the said account from 2010 to 2014. On 18.04.2013 he deposited Rs.68,000/- in the said account.  It is alleged in the complainant that the respondent bank did not deduct premium for insurance from the KCC account and has committed deficiency in service.  On account of deficiency in service on the part of the bank he was deprived of the insurance cover from the insurance company

 

-2-

towards his crop. The complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/respondent bank filed a complaint before the District Forum.

3.                     The opposite party/respondent bank did not file their written statement, however, written arguments were filed.  

4.                     The District Forum after considering the pleadings of complainant and arguments of opposite party bank found that the complainant was not regular in maintaining his KCC account and therefore, the opposite party bank has not committed any deficiency in service by not deducting the premium for insurance cover, hence dismissed the complaint. 

5.                     The complainant/appellant against the impugned order has filed this appeal stating that his account was regular, despite that the bank has not deducted premium for insurance whereas other beneficiaries agriculturists namely Suresh Kumar, Ramsewak, Balkishan, Pramod Kumar, Hariram and Gopal were benefitted by the bank by deducting premiums from their KCC account.

6.                     Heard appellant, who appeared in person. Perused the record.

7.                     Appellant reiterated the facts as has been stated in the appeal memo. He submits that by not deducting the premium by the bank, he could not get the insurance cover, therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank.  He prayed that his appeal be allowed. None appeared for the respondent.

8.                     We have gone through the record and considered the arguments of the appellant.  We find that in reply to the legal notice sent by the complainant, the bank has categorically denied the allegations and stated that KCC accounts of the other beneficiaries Suresh Kumar & Ors were regular, therefore, premiums from their accounts were deducted and insurance cover was provided, whereas the complainant’s account was not regular, therefore, the premium was not deducted.  The inference drawn by the Forum is based on record as the complainant has not filed affidavits of other beneficiaries Suresk Kumar & Ors. as mentioned in the legal notice. The complainant has failed to prove that his account was regular.  The

-3-

District Forum has rightly come to the conclusion that as the account of the complainant was not regular, therefore the bank has not committed any deficiency in service by not deducting the premium for insurance cover.  We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 

9.                     In the result, the appeal fails and is therefore dismissed.  The order of the District Forum is affirmed.  No order as to costs.

 

               (S. D. Agarwal)                         (Dr.Monika Malik)

            Presiding Member                              Member