JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      This common judgment will decide the above said two cases, which  entail  similar law point.  Smt. Savitri Devi  and  Sh. Foran Singh are farmers of separate pieces  of  land.  Shri Foran Singh secured a  loan in the  sum  of  ₹ 1,50,000/-  towards crop loan from the Syndicate  Bank, OP, on 16.10.2007  Savitri  Devi secured  a loan  in  the sum  of   ₹ 75,000/-  towards  crop  loan  from the same Syndicate Bank, OP, on 07.11.2007.  The   complainants  are  also  recorded  as  the co-owners of  separate pieces of land in their possession.    They were sanctioned loans under  Crop Loan/KCC (Kisan Credit Card) Scheme.  The case of  the  complainants  is that  they had sown the crop of Bajra (Millet)  and  Arhar  (yellow pigeon peels)  in  the  year 2008-09 in  their  respective shares.  Both  of  them  paid  premiums.  While Foran Singh paid a sum  of  ₹ 6,150/-  on 10.04.2008  and ₹ 4,875/- on 03.03.2009, as premium, Savitri Devi  paid  premium of  ₹ 2768/- on 11.04.2008 and ₹ 2,194/- on 12.03.20109.  This  appears to be the premiums of whole of the year.

2.      There  was  a severe  drought due to which, Foran Singh suffered  loss of ₹ 1,40,000/-  towards price of  bajra and ₹ 3,00,000/- for destruction of  Arhar  crop.  He  further  suffered  losses  to   the  tune of ₹ 1,00,000/-  on  account  of  destruction of  arhar  and  bajra.  Smt. Savitri  Devi  suffered loss due to the said drought, in the sum of ₹ 40,000/-  towards  price  of  bajra and  ₹ 32,000/- towards destruction of arhar  crop and  ₹  20,000/-  on account of destruction  of  wood,  total  being  92,000/-.  When  the  claim  was made before the Bank, it refused to settle the claim.

 3.      Thereafter, District  Forum  allowed the claims of both the complainants.  The  District  Forum  awarded  a sum of ₹ 92,000/-  and ₹ 4,00,000/-, respectively,  towards destruction  of  the  crop, with interest @ 6% p.a.,  to  both  the complainants,  separately  and  also  awarded a sum of ₹ 8,000/- and ₹ 7,000/-, respectively   towards mental agony and legal expenses.

 4.  The State Commission dismissed the appeals filed by the Syndicate Bank.

 5.      We have heard  the counsel  for  the parties.  The  counsel  for  the petitioner/ OP argued  that   the  record  goes to show  that   the  Syndicate  Bank  under   the  caption “Interview-cum-Assessment Form for Short  Term Loan / Overdraft  (Crop  Production Credit / Kisan Credit Card Scheme)”  it  was specifically  mentioned that only potatoes were insured.   He contended that the names  of bajra and arhar is conspicuously  missing.   He stressed that the fora below  have committed a mistake and erred in awarding compensation in favour of both the complainants.

 6.      It has come to our notice that  the complaints  were  filed  on 19.04.2010.  For  a period of three years, the petitioner/Bank  remained  conspicuously  silent.  On 30.01.2013, after the expiry of about three years’, out of blue, an application was moved by the petitioner Bank for  impleading the insurance company  as a necessary party, but said  application  was  rejected  and  the  District  Forum  passed  the  order on 23.02.2013.

 7.      The learned counsel for  the  petitioner  submitted that the said insurance  was given  for  potatoes and  for  the  crop  of  rabi  but  they  have  misused the  same since the crop was sown on unseasonal basis, therefore, the crop could not grow.

 8.      All  these  arguments  carry  no  conviction.  It  is clear  that  the Syndicate Bank  has made an attempt  to  pull  the  wool  in the eyes of the law  and  of  the farmers.  They  have  not  come to the court with clean hands.  The  Bank  employees are terribly remiss in  discharge of  their duties.  First  of  all,  the  proposal was never  placed on  record.   The  record   showing  “Interview-cum-Assessment  Form for Short  Term Loan / Overdraft  (Crop  Production Credit / Kisan Credit Card Scheme),  is  an  agreement  between  the farmers and the Bank, signed by  Shri Sanjay Singh, the Apprising Officer/R.D., Syndicate Bank.  There is  no  mention of  insurance  company.  The  insurance  company  is conspicuous by its absence.  Is the above   said document, a complete document or is a leaf from the total composite document/document ?.

 9.      We  have  perused  the  written  statement  filed  by  the OP.  The namby pamby pleas raised by the OPs/petitioners are  vague, evasive and lead the Commission nowhere.  The name of the insurance company  was  kept  under  the  hat.  No  liability  was put on  the  insurance  company.  Even  its  name  was  not disclosed.  The introduction  of  the  name of  the  insurance company after the lapse of 2-3 years’, leads to harassment, mental agony, despair, anger, anxiety,  anguish,  frustration,  etc., to  the consumers.  The consumers  are  already  exasperated by senseless delay.

 10.    It  was  the  bounden  duty of  the  petitioners/OP to  hand over the policy  to  the  complainants/ respondents.  The insurance company  should  have  taken  up  the cudgels  with  the consumers.  It is difficult to fathom as to why they were hiding the insurance company.  A  question  crops  up  whether,  both the insurance company and the bank are working in cahoots with each other.  Moreover,  this  document  “Interview-cum-Assessment  Form for Short  Term Loan / Overdraft  (Crop  Production Credit / Kisan Credit Card Scheme), does not  tally  with  the  insurance  amount or premium amount.  All these particulars are wrong.  This has been produced  to  mislead  the  consumer court.  Such  like  documents can be created by any party, at any time.  This document  should  have  come  from  the  possession  of  the insurance company.   Since the  premium  was charged, it  is  the bounden  duty  of  the  insurance  company  or the bank  to  find  out  for what purpose they are issuing insurance policy.  The non-production of main document, proposal, acceptance of  premiums  and  the policies themselves, evanesces  the value of petitioner’s/Bank’s case.  Under these facts and circumstances, we are left  with  no option to draw assumptions against the Bank.

 11.    There  is no dispute  that  the report  of Revenue Officer clearly goes  to  show  that  the crop was destroyed  on account of drought and the complainants  have grown the crop of Arhar and Bajra. It was the bounden duty of the petitioner to disclose the name of the insurance company at  the very start.

 12.    If we remand the cases, as argued by the counsel for the petitioner/OP and  allow  the impleadment of insurance company at this late stage,  it  would  defeat  the  very purpose/ object of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The  matter  is pending since the year  2007.  There  is  no  ground  for  remanding  the cases.   We see  no  merit  in  these  revision petitions  and hence dismiss the same, but nothing will debar  the Syndicate Bank, OP to get this amount  from   the  insurance  company,  as  per  law.