State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager Jila Sahakari Kendriya ... vs Mithilesh Shukla S/O Ravindra Kumar & ... on 17 December, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MADHYA PRADESH
REVIEW APPLICATION NO. SC/23/RA/58/2025
IN
SC/23/A/24/1409
BRANCH MANAGER JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT BRANCH BHAISDEHI
PRESENT ADDRESS - BRANCH MANAGER JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT
BRANCH BHAISDEHI TEHSIL BHAISDEHI DISTRIC BETUL M.P ,MADHYA PRADESH.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
MITHILESH SHUKLA S/O RAVINDRA KUMAR & OTHERS
PRESENT ADDRESS - VILLAGE MASOD TEHSIL BHAISDEHI DISTRIC BETUL M.P ,MADHYA
PRADESH.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MRS. DR. MONIKA MALIK , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
BRANCH MANAGER JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT BRANCH
BHAISDEHI
DATED: 17/12/2025
ORDER
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL REVIEW APPLICATION NO.54 OF 2025 (Arising out of the order dated 10.09.2025 passed in First Appeal No.1410/2024 by this Commission) BRANCH MANAGER, JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, BRANCH-BHAINSDEHI, DISTRICT-BETUL (M.P.) ... APPLICANT Versus
1. SHANKAR DENGE S/O SHRI JAIRAM DENGE, R/O VILLAGE-MASOD, TEHSIL-BHAINSDEHI, DISTRICT-BETUL (M.P.)
2. GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL AGRICULTURE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, LIC HEAD OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, OPPOSITE GAYATRI SHAKTIPEETH, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL (M.P.)
3. SAMITI PRABANDHAK, PRATHMIK KRISHI SAAKH SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, JHALLAR, TEHSIL-BHAINSDEHI, DISTRICT-BETUL (M.P.) (PROFORMA PARTY)
4. GOVERNMENT OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR, LAND REVENUE, DISTRICT-BETUL (M.P.) (PROFORMA PARTY) ... RESPONDENTS REVIEW APPLICATION NO.55 OF 2025 (Arising out of the order dated 10.09.2025 passed in First Appeal No.1407/2024 by this Commission) BRANCH MANAGER, JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, BRANCH-BHAINSDEHI, DISTRICT-BETUL (M.P.) ... APPLICANT Versus
1. REKHA DAWANDE W/O SHRI DEVIDAS DAWANDE, R/O VILLAGE-BORGAON, TEHSIL-BHAINSDEHI, DISTRICT-BETUL (M.P.)
2. GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL AGRICULTURE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, LIC HEAD OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, OPPOSITE GAYATRI SHAKTIPEETH, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL (M.P.)
3. SAMITI PRABANDHAK, PRATHMIK KRISHI SAAKH SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, JHALLAR, TEHSIL-BHAINSDEHI, DISTRICT-BETUL (M.P.) (PROFORMA PARTY)
4. GOVERNMENT OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR, LAND REVENUE, DISTRICT-BETUL (M.P.) (PROFORMA PARTY) ... RESPONDENTS -2- REVIEW APPLICATION NO.56 OF 2025 (Arising out of the order dated 10.09.2025 passed in First Appeal No.1411/2024 by this Commission) BRANCH MANAGER, JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, BRANCH-BHAINSDEHI, DISTRICT-BETUL (M.P.) ... APPLICANT Versus
1. NATTHU NAWANGE S/O SHRI KASHIRAM NAWANGE, R/O VILLAGE-MASOD, TEHSIL-BHAINSDEHI, DISTRICT-BETUL (M.P.)
2. GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL AGRICULTURE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, LIC HEAD OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, OPPOSITE GAYATRI SHAKTIPEETH, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL (M.P.)
3. SAMITI PRABANDHAK, PRATHMIK KRISHI SAAKH SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, JHALLAR, TEHSIL-BHAINSDEHI, DISTRICT-BETUL (M.P.) (PROFORMA PARTY)
4. GOVERNMENT OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR, LAND REVENUE, DISTRICT-BETUL (M.P.) (PROFORMA PARTY) ... RESPONDENTS REVIEW APPLICATION NO.57 OF 2025 (Arising out of the order dated 10.09.2025 passed in First Appeal No.1408/2024 by this Commission) BRANCH MANAGER, JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, BRANCH-BHAINSDEHI, DISTRICT-BETUL (M.P.) ... APPLICANT Versus
1. RAMU KAROLE S/O SHRI SHYAMA KAROLE, R/O VILLAGE-BORGAON DAM, TEHSIL-BHAINSDEHI, DISTRICT-BETUL (M.P.)
2. GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL AGRICULTURE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, LIC HEAD OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, OPPOSITE GAYATRI SHAKTIPEETH, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL (M.P.)
3. SAMITI PRABANDHAK, PRATHMIK KRISHI SAAKH SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, JHALLAR, TEHSIL-BHAINSDEHI, DISTRICT-BETUL (M.P.) (PROFORMA PARTY)
4. GOVERNMENT OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR, LAND REVENUE, DISTRICT-BETUL (M.P.) (PROFORMA PARTY) ... RESPONDENTS -3- REVIEW APPLICATION NO.58 OF 2025 (Arising out of the order dated 10.09.2025 passed in First Appeal No.1409/2024 by this Commission) BRANCH MANAGER, JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, BRANCH-BHAINSDEHI, DISTRICT-BETUL (M.P.) ... APPLICANT Versus
1. MITHILESH SHUKLA S/O SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR SHUKLA, R/O VILLAGE-MASOD, TEHSIL-BHAINSDEHI, DISTRICT-BETUL (M.P.)
2. GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL AGRICULTURE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, LIC HEAD OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, OPPOSITE GAYATRI SHAKTIPEETH, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL (M.P.)
3. SAMITI PRABANDHAK, PRATHMIK KRISHI SAAKH SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, JHALLAR, TEHSIL-BHAINSDEHI, DISTRICT-BETUL (M.P.) (PROFORMA PARTY)
4. GOVERNMENT OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR, LAND REVENUE, DISTRICT-BETUL (M.P.) (PROFORMA PARTY) ... RESPONDENTS BEFORE:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT HON'BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES Ms. Kanchan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. None for the respondents.
ORDER (Passed On 17.12.2025) Per Say Justice Sunita Yadav, President:
The applicant has filed aforesaid Review Applications assailing the order dated 10.09.2025 passed by this Commission in First Appeal Nos. 1410, 1407, 1411, 1408 and 1409 of 2024. Since all the review applications arise out of a common order and are similar in nature, -4- therefore, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. Facts are taken from Review Application No.54 of 2025 unless otherwise stated.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant-bank argued that this Commission has partly allowed the appeal of the bank and the bank and insurance company were joinly and severally held liable to pay compensation to the complainant/respondent no.1, whereas the District Commission ought to have allowed the appeal filed by the bank as the bank was nowhere liable to compensate the complainant-agriculturist in the facts and circumstances of the case. She argued that this Commission failed to consider the aforesaid fact and has passed the impugned order. She further argued that since the impugned order of this Commission is erroneous, therefore the order passed in appeals be modified and the appeals filed by the bank be allowed by allowing the aforesaid review applications.
2. Heard. Perused the record.
3. Section 50 of the Act of 2019 provides as below:
50. Review by State Commission in certain cases- The State Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order.
4. In the case of Parsion Devi and Others Vs Sumitri Devi and others reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed -5- that an error that is not self-evident and that has to be detected by the process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise the powers of review.
5. In case of Meera Bhanja Vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhary reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. It is further observed that in exercise of jurisdiction of review it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'.
6. It is also well settled that error referred to must be apparent on the face of the record and not one which has to be searched out. In case of Inderchand Jain Vs Motilal (2009) 14 SCC 663, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.
7. In view of the aforesaid settled principle of law the impugned order cannot be reviewed on the ground taken by the applicant that the order is erroneous on account of the fact that the Commission has decided -6- the matter without considering the correct facts, because this Commission cannot act as an appellate authority while deciding this review petition.
8. By filing this review application, the applicant is trying to raise objection which can only be entertained while hearing the appeal against the impugned order.
Since power of review cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous and can only be exercised if there is any error apparent on the face of the record, which is not in the present case, therefore, this review application is not having any merits.
9. Consequently, the aforesaid review applications are dismissed.
10. This order be retained in Review Application No.54/2025 and a copy be placed in Review Application Nos. 55 to 58 of 2025.
(Justice Sunita Yadav) (Dr. Monika Malik)
President Member
..................J
SUNITA YADAV
PRESIDENT
..................J
DR. MONIKA MALIK
MEMBER