Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/19/1318

KAMAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SH.MANOJ SAXENA

07 Jun 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 1318 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 13.06.2019 passed in C.C.No.151/2018 by District Commission, Rajgarh)

 

KAMAL SINGH                                                                                                …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

MANAGER, ICICI BANK LTD & ANR.                                                              …         RESPONDENT.                                      

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR     :     PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                          :      MEMBER  

                                    

 

                                      O R D E R

07.06.2023.

 

          Shri Jitendra Mathur appears on behal of Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Amit Tiwari, learned counsel 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 :                       

            This appeal arises out of the order dated 13.06.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajgarh (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.151/2018 whereby the District Commission has disposed of the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant merely on the basis of statement made by the opposite party no.1/respondent no.1-bank that amount of compensation of Rs.23,110/- has been deposited in the complainant’s KCC account.

 

 

-2-

2.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant submits that in fact awarded amount of Rs.23,110/- was not the amount of compensation which was sought for. The amount of compensation on the basis of loss as per ratio of percentage was Rs.4,00,000/- which was payable by the respondents to the appellant.

3.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as also the impugned order.

5.                Having gone through the record as also the impugned order we find that the District Commission has not considered the fact that what amount of compensation on account of loss in crop was payable to the appellant. The District Commission has disposed of the complaint only on the basis of statement made by the bank that the complainant had been paid Rs.23,110/- towards compensation on 07.09.2018. 

6.                In fact, the District Commission was supposed to examine that what amount of compensation was actually payable to the appellant towards loss of crop suffered by him. Having not done so, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is unsustainable and the same deserves to be and is set-aside.  The matter is remanded to the District Commission for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law.  

-3-

7.                Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 26.07.2023.

8.                With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of.

9.                No order as to costs.

                                               

        (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)         (Dr. Monika Malik)   

                    President                                     Member