State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Rathi Dal Mill Khirkiya vs Br.Manager, Central Bank Of India on 21 February, 2023
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FA No. 312 / 2017.
Shri Rathi Dalmill Khirkia,
Through Proprietor Rupnarayan Rathi,
s/o Late Gourishankar Rathi,
R/o Purani Galla Mandi, Khirkia,
District Harda (M.P.). .... APPELLANT.
Versus
1.Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Near Bus Stand, Khirkia, Tehsil Khirkia, District Harda.
2. Cholamandlam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, 10/B & H First Floor, Metro Tower, Near Vijaynagar Square, Indore.
3. Cholamandlam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Registered Office 2nd Floor No.2 N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai PIN No.600 001. .... RESPONDENTS.
As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :
Date of ORDER Order 21.02.2023 Shri R. K. Sengar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manoj Shahi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and 3. Heard.
- 2- This appeal arises out of the order dated 20.1.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Harda (for short the 'District Commission') in CC No.75 /2016 whereby the District Commission after considering the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties recorded a finding that in order to decide the dispute between the parties detailed oral evidence will be required to be recorded and the dispute cannot be decided in summary procedure which is to be adopted while deciding the consumer case under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the occasion for the District Commission to say so arose as the appellant / complainant had raised a plea that the surveyor appointed by the respondent no.2 / Insurance Company had made an illegal demand from him through his agent one Kushwaha for giving favourable report. However, he submits that now the appellant / complainant is not pressing the said plea and is withdrewing the said plea unconditionally. He submits that the District Commission be directed to decide the dispute between the parties on the basis of the survey report as is on record, however by giving an opportunity to the appellant / complainant to file objection supported by affidavit only in regard to the method of calculation and about the deductions made by him from the claim, and to challenge the amount which has been disallowed by the surveyor.
- 3-
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order.
4. We have considered the rival contentions and in our considered view the prayer as has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant / complainant on behalf of the appellant that he is not pressing the allegation as was levelled against the surveyor, the matter can be decided by the District Commission itself on the basis of the evidence which has already been led. We order accordingly.
5. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to remand the case to the District Commission by giving an opportunity to the appellant / complainant to file objection to the survey report supported by documentary evidence, if any on affidavit only in regard to inadequacy of the compensation and challenging the disallowance of his claim by reducing it. The respondents / Insurance Company would be entitled to file counter to the same, if they feel so.
6. Thus by observing the aforesaid, we set-aside the impugned order and direct that the District Commission shall pass fresh order in accordance with law and the directions given hereinabove.
- 4-
7. The parties to appear before the District Commission on 28.3.2023.
8. The appeal shall stand disposed of.
9. No orders as to the costs.
(Justice Shantanu Kemkar) (Dr. Monika Malik)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Phadke