M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

FA No.  353      / 2019.

1.         Union Bank of India,

            Through Branch Manager,

            Branch A.B. Guna (M.P.).

2.         Union Bank of India,

            Through General Manager (R.M.),

            Regional office, Arera Hills,

            Bhopal (M.P.).

3.         Regional Manager,

            Union Bank of India,

            Regional Office,

            33, City Center, Gwalior (M.P.).                             …. APPELLANTS.

                        Versus

1.         Vishwaveer Singh,

            s/o Shri Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi,

            R/o Gram Baskhedi, Guna.

2.         General Manager / Manager,

            HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

            M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.).

3.         Deputy Director Krishi,

            Krishi Kalyan Avam Krishi Vibhag,

            District Guna (M.P.).                                                …. RESPONDENTS.

FA No.  697      / 2019.

HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.).                                     …. APPELLANT.

            Versus

1.         Vishwaveer Singh,

            s/o Shri Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi,

            R/o Gram Baskhedi, Guna.

• 2 -

2.         Manager,

Union Bank of India,

            Branch A.B. Guna (M.P.).

3.         General Manager (R.M.),

Union Bank of India,

            Regional office, Arera Hills,

            Bhopal (M.P.).

4.         Regional Manager,

            Union Bank of India,

            Regional Office,

            33, City Center, Gwalior (M.P.).

5.         Deputy Director Krishi,

            Krishi Kalyan Avam Krishi Vibhag,

            District Guna (M.P.).                                                …. RESPONDENTS.

As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :

Date of                                          O R D E R                                                   

Order                                                                                                                 

21.11.2022                Shri Girish Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant / Union Bank of India in FA No.353/2019 and respondent no.2 to 4 in FA No.697/2019.

                                    Shri Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant in FA No.697/2019 and respondent no.2 in FA No.353/2019.

                                    Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant / respondent in FA No.353/2019 and FA No.697/2019.

                                    Heard.

• 3 -

                                    This order shall govern the disposal of both the appeals, FA No.353/2019 and FA No.697/2019, as they arise out of the order dated 16.1.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guna (for short the ‘District Commission’) in CC No.69/2018.  For the convenience the facts are taken from FA No.353/2019, unless otherwise stated.

                        2.         At the out-set counsel for the appellants / bank stated that the bank had deducted the premium as was required to be deducted and the same was forwarded to the respondent / Insurance Company.  He submits that as per the calculation made by the appellant as well by respondent no.2 / Insurance Company the compensation of Rs.39,531/- was only required to be paid and was paid by the Insurance Company / respondent no.2 to the complainant / respondent no.1.  It is stated that the District Commission in the impugned order has not specified as to how the said amount is less than the amount which was actually payable to respondent no.1 / complainant.  According to them the District Commission without assigning any reasons has recorded the finding that the compensation which is paid is less than the amount which was payable.

                        3.         We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as also the impugned order.

• 4 -

                        4.         On going through the impugned order more particularly paragraph 19 and 21 we find that the District Commission has abruptly recorded a finding that the payment of compensation which has been made is less than the amount which was payable to the first respondent / complainant. 

5.         In the circumstances, we are of the view that to clarify this aspect of the matter it would be appropriate to remand the case to the District Commission only for giving finding as to how and why the amount has been paid to the tune of Rs.39,531/- is less than the amount which was actually payable. 

6.         The District Commission if finds that the amount as paid is correct it will give finding to that effect and if it is inadequate it will give reasons and specify the amount.  Let a reasoned order be passed by the District Commission within two months from the date of appearance of the parties before the District Commission.

                        7.         The parties are at liberty to file additional affidavit in respect of their respective submissions.

                        8.         The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 5.1.2023.

                        9.         The appeals are accordingly disposed of.

• 5 -

                        8.         This order be retained in FA No.353/2019 and a copy of the same be placed in the record of FA No.697/2019.    

                    (Justice Shantanu Kemkar)                                (Dr. Monika Malik)    

                                  PRESIDENT                                                                      MEMBER