Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/19/2088

AGRICULTURE INSURANCE CO.LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

PREM SINGH CHOURASIYA - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jun 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 2088 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 12.09.2019 passed in C.C.No.92/2019 by District Commission, Rajgarh)

 

AGRICULTURE INSURANCE CO.LTD.                                                        …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

PREM SINGH                                                                                                 …         RESPONDENT.                                       

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR     :      PRESIDENT

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

                              

                                      O R D E R

09.06.2023

 

          Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

            None for the respondent no.1.

            Shri H. R. Mutreja, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

                       

As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar :                       

            This appeal arises out of the order dated 12.09.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajgarh (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.92/2019 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the first respondent/complainant and directed the appellant insurance company to pay compensation for loss suffered by first respondent in his kharif crop of soyabean for the year 2016.

2.                Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in fact there was no shortfall in kharif crop of soyabean in the year 2016 but inadvertently in the reply it has been mentioned that there was shortfall in kharif crop in the year 2016 whereas it was in kharif crop of 2017.

 

-2-

3.                The appellant has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC along with documents to show that there was no shortfall in kharif crop of soyabean in the year 2016.  The application is supported by affidavit of Shri S. Patnayak, Regional Manager of the appellant insurance company.

4.                Having regard to the aforesaid documents, we feel it appropriate to set-aside the impugned order and remand the case to the District Commission for deciding it afresh on merits in accordance with law after taking into consideration the documents filed by the appellant with the said application. The documents filed along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC be sent to the District Commission with record after retaining the copies of the same in the record. 

5.                Parties are at liberty to file further evidence in the matter. 

6.                Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 12.07.2023.

7.                With the aforesaid observations and directions the impugned order is set-aside and this appeal is disposed of.

 

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

                         President                                       Member