State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Br.Manager, Central Bank Of India vs Prabhulal on 16 December, 2022
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 203 OF 2017 (Arising out of order dated 27.12.2016 passed in C.C.No.35/2015 by District Commission, Mandsaur) BRANCH MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS. ... APPELLANTS Versus PRABHULAL & ANOTHER. ... RESPONDENTS. AND SIMILAR CONNECTED FIRST APPEAL NOS. 204 TO 215 OF 2017 BEFORE: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR : PRESIDENT
HON'BLE DR.(MRS) MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER O R D E R 16.12.20222 Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants. None for the respondent no.1.
Ms. Manisha Sharma appears on behalf of Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
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.203/2017 unless otherwise stated.
2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 27.12.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandsaur (for short 'District Commission') in C.C.No.35/2015 whereby the District Commission while holding the opposite party no.1 to 3-bank liable to pay compensation and exonerating the opposite party no.4-insurance company, did not pass -2- any order as to how much compensation is payable to first respondent/complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of the relevant crop insurance policy, it is the liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation, if once premium is deducted and sent by the bank to the insurance company. He submits that the insurance company should have issued the insurance policy as the premium was sent within the time limit and if there was delay they should have immediately returned the premium. Having not done so and having retained the premium for a long time, the insurance company cannot be allowed to contend that the premium was not received on time. He submits that the premium was duly sent on 30.09.2013 which was the cut off date.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.3-insurance company supported the impugned order.
5. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the written arguments filed by first respondent/complainant.
6. On going through the record as also the impugned order, we find that the District Commission has not given any finding as to how much amount is payable to the complainant. In the circumstances, the impugned order being vague and it is difficult to execute the same, it would be appropriate to set-aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the -3- District Commission for taking the decision afresh.
7. The District Commission shall also examine and give finding about liability to make payment as to whether it is of appellant or respondent no.2 or both jointly and or severally
8. Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 03.02.2023.
9. Record of the District Commission be sent at the earliest.
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, these appeals stand disposed of with no order as to costs. The impugned order stands set-aside.
11. This order be placed in record of Appeal no.203/2017 and a copy be placed in record of Appeal nos. 204 to 215 of 2017.
(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) (Dr. Monika Malik) President Member