Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2019) 09 NCDRC CK 0102

Nand Kishore Singh vs Manoj Kumar (Branch Manager), Punjab National Bank

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 9 September 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Revision Petition No. 304 Of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 244 words

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member

1.

The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Complainant against the order dated 16.05.2017 of the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (for short "the State Commission") whereby his Appeal No.25 of 2015 filed against the order dated 21.01.2015 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhojpurr, Arrah (for short "the District Forum") dismissing his Complaint No.28 of 2011, was dismissed.

2.

The admitted facts of the case are that the Government had started National Agriculture Insurance Scheme to compensate all those farmers for loss of their agriculture produce in whose favour loan was disbursed between the period from 01.04.2009 to 30.09.2009. Petitioner had applied for the compensation under the said Scheme on the ground of loss of his agricultural produce due to drought. He was not given any compensation on the ground that he was not covered under the Scheme. His complaint was dismissed, so also his appeal.

3.

Before me, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has admitted that the Petitioner took the loan for his produce which was disbursed to him before 30.03.2009 and no loan amount was disbursed to him from the Scheme from 01.04.2009 to 30.09.2009. It, therefore, is clear that the Petitioner was not covered under the Scheme. I found no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The Revision Petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.