RAJENDRA SHUKLA Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -BOTH the petitioners were the complainants before the District Forum, where they had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Bank.

(2.) VERY briefly stated, the facts of both the cases are that the petitioners/complainants had taken agricultural loan from the Respondent No. 1 Bank, who in turn, sought insurance from Agricultural Insurance Company under some scheme of Government of India, for which the Bank deducted amount of premium and debited the same from the petitioners account. However, no such amount was remitted by the Respondent Bank to Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company, in view of which he was not covered by the Crop Insurance Scheme. When as a result of loss of crop, the Petitioners/complainant approached the Insurance Company for getting relief under the Crop Insurance Scheme, nothing was paid as they did not have any 'cover' for want of payment of premium. It is in these circumstances, two separate complaints were filed before the District Forum, who allowed the complaints and directed the Respondent Bank to pay an amount of Rs. 15,935 along with mental agony of Rs. 3,000 as also cost of Rs. 600 (in Revision Petition No. 3166/2008) and Rs. 11,983 along with mental agony of Rs. 3,000 as also cost of Rs. 600 (in Revision Petition No. 3167/2008 ). Aggrieved by these orders, Respondent Bank filed two separate appeals before the State Commission, which were dismissed. Now, these two revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners/complainants before us.

(3.) WE heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Since the point involved in both the revision petitions is the same, we go on to dispose of these revision petitions through a common single order.