Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/19/208

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

KARAN SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

SH.SUBHASH DHOTE

14 Feb 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 208 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 14.12.2018 passed in C.C.No.347/2017 by District Commission, Sagar)

 

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK.                                                                              …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

KARAN SINGH & ANOTHER.                                                                            …         RESPONDENTS.                                      

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR     :      PRESIDENT

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

                                    

 

                                      O R D E R

14.02.2023.

 

          Shri Subhash Dhote, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Ms. Sambhavna Rajput, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

            Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

                       

As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar :                       

            This appeal is filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘Act’) assailing the order dated 14.12.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sagar (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.347/2017, whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.1.

2.                At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the reasoning given by the District Commission for allowing the complaint that an amount of Rs.25,000/- was withdrawn as per document ‘C-1’ by the complainant/first respondent towards KCC premium/insured

-2-

amount and since the same was not deposited by the appellant, the appellant had committed deficiency in service is not correct. He submits that this reason assigned by the District Commission for arriving to a conclusion that premium was deducted by the appellant from KCC account towards sum insured from the first respondent is erroneous because the said amount was withdrawn by the first respondent himself from the account on 11.09.2015. According to him as the said KCC account was NPA, there was no question of deducting premium from the first respondent’s account. Therefore, he submits that on incorrect assumption as aforesaid, the impugned order is passed, which deserves to be set-aside.

3.                Having gone through the document ‘C-1’, we find that there is no entry to the effect that premium amount towards insurance of crop was deducted by the appellant from the first respondent’s KCC account.  We find that there is no finding as to whether the said account was NPA or was the regular account as per KCC account rules. Thus the findings recorded by the District Commission without ascertaining the correct factual position are unsustainable. 

4.                In these circumstances, the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the District Commission for deciding it on merits afresh in accordance with law.

 

-3-

5.                Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 27.03.2023.

6.                Appellant is permitted to file documents to demonstrate as to whether the KCC account of the first respondent was NPA or not at the relevant point of time. The respondent no.1 as also the respondent no.2 are also given opportunity to file documents in rebuttal.

7.                With the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.   

                                                           

          (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)         (Dr. Monika Malik)   

                      President                                    Member