State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kenra Bank vs Balchandra Patel on 13 September, 2023
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 680 OF 2019 (Arising out of order dated 14.03.2019 passed in C.C.No.165/2017 by District Commission, Damoh) MANAGER, CANARA BANK, BRANCH-DAMOH, NEAR BUS STAND, DAMOH (M.P.) .... APPELLANT. Versus 1. BALCHANDRA PATEL (KURMI), S/O SHRI GAJADHAR ALIAS ANANTRAM KURMI, R/O VILLAGE-KHOJAKHEDI, TEHSIL-PATHARIA, DISTRICT-DAMOH (M.P.) 2. GOVERNMENT OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR, DAMOH 3. H.D.F.C ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. SIXTH FLOOR, LEELA, BUSINESS PARK, KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI (EAST) MUMBAI (M.S.) .... RESPONDENTS. BEFORE : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR : PRESIDENT HON'BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :
Shri R. K. Lokhande, learned counsel for the appellant-bank.
None for the respondent no.1-complainant.
None for the respondent no.2.
Shri Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.3-insurance co.
O R D E R (Passed on 13.09.2023) The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:
This appeal by the opposite party no.1/appellant-Canara Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'bank') is directed against the order dated 14.03.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Damoh (for short 'District Commission') in C.C.No.165/2017, -2- whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant')
2. Briefly put, facts of the care are that the complainant is the owner of agricultural land admeasuring 3.61 hectares in Mauja Jaurtala Kalan and 0.95 in Mauja Khojakhedi respectively in patwari halka number 27. The complainant had sown soyabean crop in the year 2016 regarding which premium of Rs.1,641/- was sent by the bank to the opposite party no.3/respondent no.3-insurance company (hereinafter referred to as 'insurance company') insuring the crop under 'Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna' (hereinafter referred to as 'scheme'). It is alleged that crop sown by the complainant in the year 2016 was destroyed due to excessive rainfall. The complainant was paid Rs.2,615/- and Rs.688/- respectively, whereas he deserved Rs.48,717/- from the insurance company. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached the District Commission, seeking relief.
3. The opposite party no.1-bank resisted the complaint on the ground that it had sent premium amount via NEFT for the purpose of crop insurance. The bank deposits the amount in the account of the farmers when it is received by it from the insurance company. Therefore, there is no liability of bank in the instant matter.
-3-4. The opposite party no.2 i.e. State Government in its reply submitted that the complainant has not sought any relief against it and thus the complaint against the opposite party no.2 deserves to be dismissed.
5. The opposite party no.3-insurance company resisted the complaint on the ground that the complainant has been paid compensation in accordance with the guidelines provided by the State Government. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company.
6. The District Commission partly allowing the complainant directed the bank to pay to the complainant, difference claim amount towards loss incurred in the crop sown by the complainant, within a period of two months with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of complaint filing i.e. 28.12.2017, till payment. The insurance company is also directed to compensate the bank, after receiving the balance claim amount from the Government. In addition compensation of Rs.5,000/- with another sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs is also awarded. Hence this appeal.
7. Heard.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant-bank argued that the District Commission has ignored the documents filed by the bank from where it is established that the complainant's land is situated in Revenue Circle-Sadguva. Both Jaurtala kalan and Khaujakhedi fall under Revenue Circle-Sadguvan, the patwari halka nos. of which are 44 & 45 respectively. The -4- insurance company had wrongly mentioned patwari halka no.54. The bank had sent correct proposal with premium to the insurance company but the insurance company did not take any action and the complainant's details were not rectified by the insurance company. No deficiency in service has been there on bank's part and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.
9. Learned counsel for the insurance company argued that the proposal of the complainant was received with regard to revenue division Sadguvan. No proposal form with regard to Jaurtala Kalan and Khojakhedi, where the complainant's land is actually situated was received by the insurance company. Therefore, the complianant was paid claim amount on the basis of proposal which was received from the bank. In the year 2016, under the scheme, the complainant was paid Rs.2,615/- and Rs.688/- respectively, towards claim amount. The complainant is not entitled to any further relief. If there is any misreporting on the bank's part, then the bank is liable for that and not the insurance company.
10. After careful perusal of the record we observe that Annexure 'C-5' demonstrates that the premium amount of Rs.1299/- and Rs.342/- respectively, insuring the soyabean crop sown in the agricultural land of the complainant situated in Jaurtala Kalan and Khojakhedi respectively was obtained by the insurance company. Annexure 'C-6' is the format for -5- details of farmers covered under the scheme. In the said description patwari halka number of Jaurtala Kalan is shown as 44 and of Khojakhedi as 45.
11. This plea of the insurance company is not acceptable that the proposal form was received with regard to Sadguvan, when two separate premiums for Jaurtala Kalan and Khojakhedi were received by the insurance company.
12. It has been categorically stated by learned counsel for the bank that the insurance company had wrongly mentioned patwari halka no. as 54, insuring the complainant's crop sown in two agricultural lands, when two separate premiums were received by the insurance company for the patwari halka no.44 and 45 respectively. Both the above villages-Jaurtala Kalan and Khojakhedi come under the revenue circle 'Sadguvan' regarding which two separate claims were made before the insurance company. This fact was clearly demonstrated by documents R-1, R-2 and R-3 which were filed on record.
13. Without considering the aforesaid documents, the District Commission has held the bank liable in the instant matter. We find that while holding the same, the District Commission has not considered the documents available on record. We infer that the impugned order is not descriptive regarding handling the issue involved in the matter.
-6-14. In view of the aforesaid discrepancy, we are of a considered opinion that the matter deserves to be remanded back for decision afresh, in accordance with law.
15. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission for decision afresh.
16. Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 30.10.2023.
17. Record of the District Commission be sent at the earliest.
18. The contentions of the parties are kept open. Parties are at liberty to file additional evidence as per directions of the District Commission, within the time specified for the same.
19. The observations made hereinabove are only tentative in nature and the District Commission is expected to thoroughly examine the matter and prepare an observation of its own.
20. The District Commission is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and decide the matter as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months after the appearance of the parties.
21. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
(JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR) (DR. MONIKA MALIK) PRESIDENT MEMBER