Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/18/211

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAMBHAROSE MEENA - Opp.Party(s)

SH.SUNIL PANDEY

21 Jun 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 211 OF 2018

(Arising out of order dated 25.07.2018 passed in C.C.No.269/2017 by District Commission, Hoshangabad)

 

BRANCH MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL

BANK.                                                                                                                 …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

RAMBHAROS MEENA & ANR.                                                                         …         RESPONDENTS.                                      

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR     :      PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY                                 :      MEMBER 

                              

                                      O R D E R

21.06.2023

 

          Shri Sunil Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Narayan Singh, 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 arises out of the order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hoshangabad (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No. 269/2017 whereby the District Commission after considering the pleadings and evidence held that the opposite party no.2-insurance company has already remitted the amount of Rs.86,022/- to the opposite party no.1-bank which has not been disbursed by the bank to the first respondent/complainant and thus there is deficiency in service on part of the bank. However, the bank was directed to pay Rs.74,078/- taking note of the fact that the complainant had claimed only the said amount.

-2-

2.                Feeling aggrieved, the bank has filed this appeal.

3.                Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the pleadings we find that the second respondent-insurance company has already sent the consolidated amount of compensation payable to the farmers to the bank. It is borne out from the record and also not disputed by the parties that the bank had deducted the premium from the first respondent’s account towards crop insurance and had remitted the same to the insurance company. In the circumstances, the amount which was received by the bank from the insurance company towards compensation included the first respondent’s amount of compensation.  Therefore, the bank is liable to pay the compensation amount to the first respondent/complainant.

4.                In these circumstances, in our considered view, the District Commission has committed no error in directing the appellant bank to disburse the amount with interest, cost and compensation for deficiency in service to the first respondent/complainant as recorded in the impugned order.  

5.                No interference is called for in the impugned order.

6.                The appeal is therefore dismissed.        

          

                (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)             (Dr. Srikant Pandey)   

                         President                                       Member