SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

RAVISHANKAR, SUNITA C. BAGEWADI
Manager Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank – Appellant
Versus
Tayavva W/o Basappa Gulagannavar – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Sri. T.P. Muthanna, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Kumar A. Patil, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2:Sri. Prashant T. Pandit, Advocate

ORDER

Sunita C. Bagewadi, Member—The Appellant/OP-1 filed these eleven (11) appeals being aggrieved by the order dated 21.05.2018 passed by Koppal District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.69/2017 to 79/2017 respectively which allowed the complaints filed by the complainants.

2. The brief facts of the cases are that, all the complainants have alleged that they have availed a crop insurance policy during the year 2016-2017 under “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bhima Yojana” from Opposite Party No.2 through the Opposite Party No.1 bank for Maize crop on the date and receipt shown in Col.No.5 and has paid the premium as shown in Col. No.6. All the complainants have paid the premiums as per their sowing area in their lands. During that year there was shortfall in the yield of crop due to scanty rainfall. The Opposite Party No.1 received the crop insurance premium from these complainants on different dates for Maize crop and after entering the data into the computer, they have approved the same and also they sent the premium to the Opposite Party No.2 insurance company. But the Opposite Party No

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top