Per Shri B.A.Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member.
1. These twelve appeals are filed by the same original opposite party (for short O.P.) No.1/Allahabad Bank, feeling aggrieved by twelve identical orders passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Washim in twelve consumer complaints, by which the District Consumer Forum below allowed all those twelve consumer complaints by giving direction to the O.P.1/appellant to pay to the complainants compensation to which they are entitled under the “National Agricultural Insurance Scheme”, with interest @ 10% P.A. from 19/12/2016 i.e. from the date of government circular till its realization by the said complainants and also to pay each of the complainant Rs.15,000/- towards physical and mental harassment and litigation cost.
2. We have heard advocate Mr.Manish Meshram appearing for the appellant, advocate Mr.H.N.Verma appearing for the National Agriculture Insurance Company, advocate Mr.S.A.Gore and advocate Mr.R.S.Suryawanshi appearing for the original complainants/ respective respondents, in these appeals. We have also perused the record and proceedings of these appeals.
3. The common facts in brief giving rise to the present appeals are as under.
a) The original complainants obtained crop loan from the appellant/bank. The appellant/bank deducted premium from the said loan for payment thereof in consolidated form to the Agriculture Insurance Company India Limited which was joined to the complaints as O.P.No.2. The said premium was to be paid to the said insurance company under the scheme called as “National Agriculture Insurance Scheme”. The said scheme came in to force as per the tripartite agreement entered in to between Government of Maharashtra, the Agriculture Insurance Company India Limited and the Nodal Bank/Financial Institution. The appellant is one of the nodal bank, who was a party to the said tripartite agreement.
b) However the appellant/bank failed to pay premium, to the Agriculture Insurance Company India Limited which was collected by it from the complainants of the present complaints. The complainants suffered losses in agricultural yield due to draught. The said losses were covered under the said scheme. However the Agriculture Insurance Company India Limited did not make good losses suffered by them because it did not receive the premium as per scheme from the appellant and thus the crop of the complainants was not insured for that particular period. Therefore the complainants filed twelve consumer complaints against the appellant/bank and Agriculture Insurance Company India Limited claiming from them compensation under the said scheme.
4. The said complaints were resisted by the appellant/bank as well as by Agriculture Insurance Company India Limited by filing their reply. The learned District Consumer Forum below after hearing both the parties and considering evidence brought on record, partly allowed all those complaints and directed the appellant/bank to pay to the respective complainants compensation under the said scheme with interest @ 12% P.A. from 19/12/2016 and further to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- to each of them for physical and mental harassment and towards litigation cost. The Forum came to common conclusion under impugned order that the O.P.No.1/appellant bank rendered deficient service to the complainants as it did not forward the premium collected from the complainants to the Agriculture Insurance Company India Limited and thus it is liable to make good the loss suffered by the original complainants as above.
5. Thus feeling aggrieved, the original O.P.No.1 has filed these twelve appeals. The learned advocate of appellant argued as under.
a. Firstly the State Government is not joined to these complaints though it was necessary party and that the Forum below has not considered that the complaints are bad in law for non jointer of the said party.
b. Secondly, the complainants in respective complaints have not stated the area of the crop, loss suffered by each of them due to draught and how much area of the crop was destroyed due to draught and the Forum below without considering the same directed the appellant/bank to make good the loss suffered by the respective complainants.
c. Thirdly the Nodal Bank/appellant cannot be held responsible for making good entire loss suffered by the complainants and the Forum ought to have directed the Agriculture Insurance Company India Limited also to share the said losses as the appellant/bank after a period of one year had sent the demand draft of the premium to the said insurance company, but it refused to accept the same. Hence he requested that the impugned orders may be set aside.
6. The advocate Mr.H.N.Verma appearing for Agriculture Insurance Company India Limited supported the impugned orders. He has drawn our attention to the tripartite agreement and particularly the clause No.9-a and clause No.5 of the special condition of the scheme and submitted that as per the said clauses the Forum below has rightly held appellant as solely responsible. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in the Revision Petition Nos.2143 to 2148 of 2009 in the case of Syndicate Bank…..V/s……Ranga Reddy and others, decided on 20/09/2010. He also submitted that the said decision is fully applicable to the present case, in which the Nodal Bank was held responsible under the identical facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence he requested that these appeals may be dismissed.
7. On the other hand, the aforesaid learned advocate of original complainants supported the impugned orders and also adopted the aforesaid submission of advocate Mr.H.N.Verma. In addition to the same they made common submission that the declaration was already submitted by the respective complainants to the appellant bank in which all the details i.e. names of the complainant, the premium, area of land and insured amount was supplied and therefore on that basis the Forum below has rightly partly allowed those complaints. Hence they requested that appeals may be dismissed.
8. It is not disputed that the premium collected by the appellant/ bank from the respective complainants as per the aforesaid tripartite agreement was not paid by it to the insurance company on or before stipulated date i.e.31/08/2014. But the appellant tried to pay that amount after the payment of the compensation to other claimants. The said premium was tried to be deposited by the appellant with the insurance company alongwith the letter dated 25/08/2015. Thus there appears to be delay of one year. Therefore we hold that the Agriculture Insurance Company India Limited has rightly refused to accept the said premium which was no deposited with it within the stipulated period as per the aforesaid tripartite agreement.
9. The said tripartite agreement under its clause No.5 of Special Condition provides that, “In case a farmer is deprived of any benefit under the Scheme due to errors/omissions/commissions of the Nodal Bank/Branch/PACS, the concerned institutions only shall make good all such losses. The said Special Condition No.5 is thus binding on the appellant/Nodal Bank. It can not avoid its responsibility when due to its own error and fault the premium collected by it from the complainants could not be deposited with the insurance company within stipulated time, and therefore the insurance company refused to make good losses suffered by the complainants. There is no fault on the part of the original complainants who are also joined to all these appeals as the respondent.
10. We therefore hold that the Forum below has rightly held that it is the sole responsibility of the appellant/Nodal Bank to make good losses suffered by the complainants. Moreover the appellant/bank has got the declaration given to it by respective complainants and on the basis of the same the appellant bank can make good losses suffered by the complainants.
11. We also find that the State Government is not a necessary party to the present complaints in as much as under the tripartite agreement there is no responsibility of the State Government for making good, the losses suffered by the respondents/claimants. Moreover as the appellant has got all the details of the losses suffered by the respective complainant, and there is no necessity of giving the details of the same in the complaint.
12. The Forum below has rightly held that each of the complainant is entitled of Rs.15,000/- compensation towards physical and mental harassment and also towards litigation cost.
13. The Hon’ble National Commission in the aforesaid case relied on by the learned advocate of the insurance company has also directed the Nodal Bank to make good losses suffered by the complainant. The said decision is fully applicable to the present case. Thus we find that there is no merit in all these appeals and the same deserve to be dismissed. Thus following order is passed.
// ORDER //
- All these appeals bearing Nos.RBT/A/18/30 to RBT/A/18/41 are hereby dismissed.
- No order as to costs in all these appeals.
- Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost.
