M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

FA No. 2303 / 2019.

HDFC Ergo Agriculture Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Manager, HDFC General Insurance Company Ltd., V.N.V. Plaza, 2^nd Floor, Plot No.06, Service Road, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.). …. APPELLANT.

Versus

1. Rajendra Jain s/o Motilal Jain, R/o Ward No.2, Gram Chandpur, Tehsil Rahli, District Sagar (M.P.).

2. Surendra Kumar Jain w/o Shri Motilal Jain

3. Anjna, w/o Komalchand Jain, R/o Gram Chandpur, Tehsil Rahli, District Sagar (M.P.).

4. Branch Manager, Madhyaachal Gramin Bank, Chandpur, Tehsil Rahli, District Sagar (M.P.). …. RESPONDENTS.

As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :

Date of O R D E R

Order

03.08.2023 Shri Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

None for the respondent no.1, 2 and 3.

Shri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

Heard.

This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order dated .16.10.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sagar (for short the ‘District Commission’) in CC No. 261/2018 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint and awarded a compensation in excess to the amount which has been paid by the appellant / Insurance Company.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the payment of compensation was made to the respondent / complainant as per their entitlement and the formula fixed under the Pradhan Mantri Fasan Bima Yojana for calculation of the compensation whereas the District Commission while passing the impugned order by applying the formula that the amount is required to be paid as per the loan amount, has held that the amount as was paid was lesser than the entitlement. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the approach adopted by the District Commission to calculate the compensation being contrary to what have been provided in the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, the same is liable to be set-aside..

3. We have considered the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and we find ourselves in complete agreement with it as we find that the compensation amount is payable in accordance with the formula fixed in the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. The appellant having paid the amount after calculating the compensation as per the formula mentioned in the scheme, the enhancement of the same by the District Commission by giving altogether different reason that the amount is payable as per the loan advanced by the respondent no.4 / Bank to the complainants, cannot be sustained as the same runs contrary to the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana.

4. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal and set-aside the impugned order.

(Justice Shantanu Kemkar) (Dr. Monika Malik)

PRESIDENT MEMBER Phadke