Date of filing :18.01.2022 Date of order :06.04.2023 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.: 1 OF 2022 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.: 369 OF 2020 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 138 OF 2019 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: LATUR Branch Manager, State Bank of India Ahmedpur Branch, State Bank of India Branch at Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmadpur, Dist.Latur. …APPLICANT VERSUS

1. Bhimsingh Narayansingh Thakur, R/o Ahmadpur, Tq.Ahmadpur, Dist.Parbhani.

2. Manager, Agricultural Insurance company India Ltd. , Regional Office Mumbai, 20th floor, Bombay Stock Exchange, Towards Dalal Street Fort, Mumbai – 400023. …RESPONDENTS.

CORAM : Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member.

Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon’ble Member.

Present : Adv.A.V.Rakh for applicant, J U D G M E N T (Delivered on 06/04/2023)

Per Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon’ble Member.

1. This review application No.1/2022 is filed by the applicant to recall the order passed by this Commission in MA No.184/2020 dt.22/12/2021 wherein application of condonation of delay is dismissed and consequently the F.A.No.369/2020 came to be dismissed.

2. It is contended in the present review application that this Commission failed to calculate the delay occurred in filing of the appeal. It is contended that there is actual delay of 80-85 days, whereas this Commission wrongly calculated it as 113 days. The order of District Forum challenged in appeal No.369/2020 is dated 16/11/2019 and if it is assumed that it is received on

20 or 21/11/2019, the delay comes to 80-85 days.

3. It is also contended that this Commission has not considered the reasons stated in the M.A. that the appellant bank is situated in rural areas and majority of the account holders of the bank are farmers. It is contended that the delay occurred because at the relevant time Government of Maharashtra has declared remission of crop loan and directed applicant bank for linking of Aadhar Card to loan accounts of farmers and therefore officers of bank could not attend the matter for filing the appeal within stipulated time. It is also contended that the order in consumer complaint is exparte against the appellant bank. The District Forum wrongly observed negligence on the part of applicant bank and decided complaint against the applicant bank.

It is also contended that the advocate of complainant misled this Commission. It is contended that in the letter dt.10/11/2014 , it is mentioned that they have received demand draft and declaration forms of farmers insured under National Agriculture Insurance Scheme(NAIS) during Kharip 2014 season. Points to be noted is given below.

1) Excess premium of Rs.68703.56 is send

2) Please send the DD amounting Rs.49956.44

3) Please check each declaration form for more information and requested to please send the correct demand draft and declaration form. It is contended that, nowhere in the letter dt.10/11/2014 stated that applicant has forwarded amount belatedly.

It is contended that this Hon’ble Commission while deciding the application not considered the record properly and therefore it is necessary to recall the order. It is not the case of insurance company that bank has sent belatedly premium to the insurance company and it is not transpired in their reply also. It is also contended in review application that this Commission has committed error in not appreciating the record produced by appellant bank and wrongly relied on the submission of advocate of complainant and dismissed the delay condonation application. It is contended that this Commission has not taken liberal approach in deciding the misc.application and requested this Commission to recall the order in misc.application dated 24/12/2021.

4. Heard learned advocate Shri.A.V.Rakh who argued in the line of review application.

5. It reveals that the first ground taken by review applicant that this Commission failed to calculate delay properly. We have gone through the file F.A.No.369/2020 and M.A.No.184/2020. It reveals that the impugn