Date of filing:02.08.2023, 07.08.2023 & 08.08.2023

                                                                                    Date of Disposal:01.09.2023

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 01^st Day of September 2023

PRESENT

Mr. K B SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs.M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NOs. 1493 to 1503 of 2023 & 1509 to 1524 of 2023

C O M M O N   O R D E R

IN APPEAL NO.1493/2023

BY Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. The above appeals are preferred by OP1 in CC Nos.2250, 2251, 2237, 2238, 2239, 2240, 2428, 2429, 2430, 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436, 2437, 2438, 2439, 2440, 2441, 2442, 2443, 2445, 2463, 2464, 2810 of 2018 and 1428/2019 respectively on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi, aggrieved by the order dated 05.12.2022 and 27.01.2023.

2. All the above appeals are set today for hearing on admission before the Commission; hence we examined grounds of appeal, impugned order passed by the Commission below in the respective complaint cases, contents of affidavit sworn-in by authorized person of appellant/OP1 explaining grounds to condone delay in filing these appeals. 

3. The Commission heard learned counsel for appeals in the respective cases.  Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Commission passed orders on 21.12.2022 in Appeal Nos.2451 to 2431 of 2022, wherein, found similar such appeals filed by OP1 i.e., Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, came to be allowed and set aside the impugned orders passed by DCDRC, Gadag, and as a result remanded all the complaint cases to the commission below with a direction to re-admit all the cases and re-appreciate the materials on record.  In such circumstances,  learned counsel for OP1/appellant herein these appeals, submit that the findings recorded by the Commission below is not based on facts and law but recorded purely on imagination  and on hypothetical grounds could not be maintained and requires to be re-considered afresh to appreciate the facts and circumstances in right way has some considerable force in view of the earlier orders passed by the commission in similar such appeals wherein the matters came to be allowed and remanded back to commission below.  

4. In so far as the delay in filing of these appeals, learned counsel submits that one Mr.Sunamukhi Sarat Kumar, S/o Sri.Kanaka Rao, Branch Manager, Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, has sworn-in enclosed to the I.A. that the Certified Copy of the Final Order is received on 02.05.2023 and he forwarded the said copy to the Head Office, Dharwad, for discussion and thereafter, the Head Office had taken decision to challenge the impugned order.  OP1/appellant has got good case on merits and if the delay is condoned, no harm or injustice would be caused to complainant, as such in our view suffices to condone delay if any caused to prefer these appeals.  Accordingly, allowed the IA filed U/s 5 of Limitation Act and entertained all these appeals, for consideration, since statutory deposit is also made. As already stated at the very outset   that on similar such appeals filed in Appeal Nos.2421 to 2431 of 2022 this commission vide order dated 21.12.2022, decided and remanded back matters for fresh consideration, which has to be followed to meet ends of justice in these appeals.

5. We have to observe herein this order that OP1- the Branch Manager, Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank in all these complaint cases being the banker has to follow guidelines, as to how the scheme has to be implemented. In other words, banker has to strictly follow the guidelines, to achieve the government scheme in the matter involved in all the complaint cases. It is the duty of the Banker to transfer the collected premium amount from respective complainants within time stipulated and when it shown to the satisfaction of the commission below question of joint liability of Banker does not arise. In other words if such burden is discharged, it is   OP2 Insurance Company alone to act upon. It is submitted by learned counsel OP1 banker had uploaded in SAMRAKSHANA Portal of OP1 was not considered, has some considerable force, since   insurer has not denied receipt of the insurance premium amount collected by the appellant bank on behalf of respective complainants, yet this vital factual matrix was not considered in right perception by the Commission below.  Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there is no separate column to make mention, whether the crop fall within the category of irrigated or rainfed in the proposed insurance form of PMFBY namely Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana for the year 2016-17, issued by Government of India and in our view this has to be inferred within the knowledge of insurer, which ofcourse was pointed out by the appellant/OP1, was not considered by the Commission below. 

6. The allegation of the insurer that OP1/appellant bank has made wrong entry in the SAMRAKSHANA portal is denied by the appellant and in   this regard, facts remains, enquiry reveals that insurer received the premium amount paid by respective complainants sent by OP1 bank and the Insurance Company failed to rebut, as to why such huge premium amount was sent by banker by uploading in the authorized Portal.  

7. Learned counsel for appellant submits that bank has not wrongly mentioned the land as irrigated instead of rainfall (i.e., dry land) because the Crop Insurance Form and Insurance Premium through online are paid to the Insurance Company as per the details/instructions given by the Loanee Farmers.  Accordingly, the proposal form submitted in SAMRAKSHANA Portal is found and no wrong mentioning of the land is irrigated instead of rain fed crop.  It is to be noted herein there is no separate column to mention whether the crop comes under the category of irrigated or rainfall in the proposed insurance form PMFBY for the year 2016-17, could have been considered by the commission below.

8.  Learned counsel to find support all his submissions coupled with grounds urged in the appeals, relied on SC Civil Appeal No.8386/2015 in the case between Manamohan Nanda v. United Insurance Co. Ltd., dated 06.12.2021 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held – “Insurance Company is liable to pay insurance/compensation.”  On similar such facts and submits as insurance company is not denied the receipt of the insurance premium amount and the relevant documents from the Loanee Farmers/respondent no.1 herein, banker rendered deficiency in service is incorrect.  It is to be taken notice of the fact that there is no separate column to show irrigated or rainfall in the proposed form for the year 2016-17.  In such circumstances, for any latches or lapses on the part of proposal form in separate portal is nothing to do with banker and the banker has to follow the course that is to receive premium amount within time stipulated and with full particulars  to  upload  in SAMRAKSHANA Portal and to forward or send or transfer the premium amount to the insurer within time stipulated, if that conditions are fulfilled bankers, suffice to exonerated the appellant/banker and if yet commission below held  liable to pay the amount sought by respective complainants jointly with insurer is nothing but erroneous  findings recorded without perceiving the facts of the case in right way. In such forming opinion, we hold, the role of banker in order to implement the scheme properly, the branches shall maintain the required information, particulars, in excel format for the loanee farmers and non-loanee farmers.  The branch shall collect insurance premium as per the rates applicable to the schemes of these insurance products. The branches shall submit declarations crop wise, defined area wise details, category farmer wise on monthly basis in the format prescribed by the insurance company within the prescribed time and collect insurance premium and remitting the same to the insurance company and insurance proposal will remain in the custody of the bank. The bank incorporates insurance details in insurance portal ‘Samrakshana’ and reports the same to the insurance company.  The branches shall forward the declaration forms to insurance companies.  This insurance premium is forwarded through RTGS to the insurance company.  The insurance company shall admit and acknowledge the insurance premium and find substantiate we have also   followed the  decision of this commission cited supra and ordered to dispense with issuance of notice of these appeals to be served on respondent nos.1 and 2 to avoid further delay and also in their interest, who are none other insured and insurer. Accordingly, proceed to allow all the appeals filed by OP1 in Appeal Nos.1493 to 1503 of 2023 and Appeal Nos.1509 to 1524 of 2023 respectively.  Consequently set aside the impugned order passed in CC Nos.2250, 2251, 2237, 2238, 2239, 2240, 2428, 2429, 2430, 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436, 2437, 2438, 2439, 2440, 2441, 2442, 2443, 2445, 2463, 2464, 2810 of 2018 and 1428/2019 dated 05.12.2022 and 27.01.2023 respectively and directed Commission below to re-admit all the complaint cases  and decide the cases as afresh, affording opportunity to both parties as early as possible not later than 03 months from the date of receipt of this order.

9. The Statutory deposit made in all these appeals is directed to be refund in favour of the appellant in the respective cases with proper identification by his advocate.

10. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.

  Lady Member                               Judicial Member             

*GGH*