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

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 18105

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Zonal Manager The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
P.Hemarani W/o S.Palanisamy & Anr. – Respondent
SC/33/A/170/2023



Daily Order

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

  Present:   Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  :   PRESIDENT                

F.A. No. 170 of 2023

[Against the order passed in C.C. No.57 of 2021 dated 07.12.2022 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Nagapattinam]

 

 

Wednesday, the 31st day of July 2024

 

Zonal Manager

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,

Neela South Street,

Nagapattinam District.                                               .. Appellant/    

                                                                                1st Opposite party

 

                                                - Vs -

 

1.  P. Hemarani

     W/o. S. Pakirisamy

     1/2B, RPS Nagar

     Vishnuthoppu, Pulivalam

     Tiruvarur Taluk & District.                                     ..  1st Respondent /

                                                                                  Complainant

 

2.  The Branch Manager

     Canara Bank

     Valivalam Branch

     Valivalam Village,Kilvelur Taluk

     Nagapattinam District.                                          .. 2nd Respondent/

                                                                              2nd Opposite Party

 

        Counsel for Appellant/

                        1st Opposite Party      : M/s. S.R. Sundar

 

        Counsel for the 1st Respondent/

                                Complainant      :  M/s. K. Sukumaran

Counsel for the 2nd Respondent/

                        2nd Opposite Party      : M/s. K.P. Kiran Rao

 

 

                This appeal came up for final hearing on 28.06.2024 and, on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the parties and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

 

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

                This appeal has been filed by the 1st opposite party, under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as against the order dated 07.12.2022, in C.C. No.57 of 2021, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagapattinam, allowing the complaint and directing them to pay the award amount to the complainant, along with the 2nd opposite party Bank.

 

          2.  The appellant is the 1st Opposite Party, the 1st respondent is the complainant and the 2nd respondent is the 2nd Opposite party before the District Forum.  For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their ranking before the District Forum.

 

                3.  In brief, the case of the complainant, as given in the complaint filed before the District Forum, is as follows :-

                The complainant is in possession of 0.30.00 hectares of lands in Survey Nos.10/2C in Thenmaruthur village and 1.18.00 hectares of land in Aanthankuddi village, Nagapattinam District totally 1.48 hectares.  She had availed loan of Rs.88,000/- from the 2nd opposite party Bank, on 13.11.2018, under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) for cultivating the said lands.  While sanctioning the said loan, the 2nd opposite party had collected a sum of Rs.1875/- towards crop insurance premium amount and insured the agricultural crop under PMFBY Scheme.  The complainant had produced copy of the patta, chitta, Adangal documents to the 2nd opposite party, for obtaining agricultural loan and for availing insurance policy.  Whileso, due to natural disaster during 2018-2019, the complainant suffered huge loss and hence made a claim to the 1st opposite party for payment of compensation under the PMFBY scheme.  The 1st opposite party ought to have awarded compensation before November 2019.  Since the complainant did not receive the compensation amount, she approached the 1st opposite party, who informed the complainant that the 2nd opposite party has mentioned that the lands of the complainant belongs to Valivalam village and that the policy has been issued for the lands in Valivalam village.  Further, she was informed that there is no loss of crops at Valivalam village and hence they had declined the requ

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 Back to top