View 2335 Cases Against Canara Bank
CANARA BANK filed a consumer case on 21 Jun 2023 against KULDEEP SINGH in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/19/1482 and the judgment uploaded on 10 Jul 2023.
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1479 OF 2019
(Arising out of order dated 10.07.2019 passed in C.C.No.158/2017 by District Commission, Hoshangabad)
CANARA BANK. … APPELLANT
Versus
GOPAL SINGH & ORS. … RESPONDENTS.
AND SIMILAR CONNECTED FIRST APPEAL NOS. 1481 & 1482 OF 2019
BEFORE:
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR : PRESIDENT
HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : MEMBER
O R D E R
21.06.2023
Shri R. K. Lokhande, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ghanshyam Soni, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 & 2.
Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar :
Aforesaid appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. This order shall govern disposal of all the aforesaid appeals. For convenience facts of the case are taken from the First Appeal No.1479/2019 unless otherwise stated.
2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hoshangabad (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.158/2017 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the first and second respondents/complainants.
-2-
3. The appellant bank has filed this appeal assailing the calculation made by the District Commission in paragraph 12 of the impugned order and the amount ordered to be granted by the appellant to the complainants on that basis. According to the appellant, the amount as payable to the complainants was already paid to them after receiving the same from the third respondent insurance company. However, the District Commission has committed error in making calculation on the basis of formula of disbursement of compensation as per ratio of premium paid by taking premium rate of 2.5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact for soyabean kharif crop the amount was to be divided by taking the premium rate at 3.5 and not at 2.5. He submitted that in view of the said mistake the District Commission had reached to the figure of Rs.1,06,342/- and in the circumstances, the District Commission directed the opposite parties to pay the difference amount of Rs.30,372/- to the complainants which was in addition to payment of Rs.75,170/- already made.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record and the impugned order.
5. In National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, we find that premium rate for calculation of compensation relating to Soyabean kharif crop is fixed at 3.5, therefore, the calculation made by the District Commission @ 2.5 and the finding to the effect that less amount is paid to the complainants
-3-
being on the basis of erroneous premium rate, same deserves to be set-aside. We find that the appellant had rightly made payment of compensation on the basis of formula which was provided under the scheme and therefore, the impugned order directing to pay Rs.30,372/- over and above Rs.75,970/- which was already paid is unsustainable and is hereby set-aside.
6. The appeals stand allowed.
7. This order be placed in record of Appeal no.1479/2019 and a copy be placed in record of Appeal nos. 1481 & 1482 of 2019.
(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) (Dr. Srikant Pandey)
President Member
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.