This order shall dispose of revision petition 3654/2006 and 3655/2006 as the facts are similar and the point of law is same.  The facts are being taken from revision petition 3654/2006.

-2-

          Complainant is an account holder bearing passbook no.                AGL 6/1207 with the respondent bank.  He insured his crop @ 150% and paid Rs.3070.45 paise as the premium.  The State Government declared 72% crop damage in Komna panchayat Samiti whereas the complainant received compensation @ 29% crop damage which was declared for Nuapada Panchayat Samiti and that too @ 100% and thereby he sustained loss due to wrong assessment by the respondent.  The complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum and claimed that he is entitled to compensation of 150% over Ac.23.47 which comes to Rs.58,675/- along with interest @ 18% p.a.

          General Insurance Corporation of India (GICI) which had insured the crops was not made a party respondent to the complaint.  Only State Bank of India was impleaded as party respondent.  Respondent on being served entered appearance and filed the Written Statement.  Stand taken by the respondent was that the petitioner was not a consumer of the respondent.  It was admitted that the petitioner had got his kharif crop insured for the year 2002 with the General Insurance Corporation of India through the respondent; that the respondent was only an implementing agency;

-3-

that the premium deposited by the petitioner was remitted to the NODAL Branch which in turn remitted the amount to General Insurance Corporation of India on 29.8.2002; that the respondent had not received any commission or charges from the complainant and as such, the complainant was not a consumer of the respondent.  It was, further, stated that General Insurance Corporation of India had received the premium amounts within cut-off dates i.e. 31.8.2002.  It is the liability of the insurance corporation to satisfy the complainant.  As such there is no deficiency on the part of the respondent.  It was stated that the General Insurance Corporation of India is a necessary party.  Denying all the allegations made, respondent prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

          Respondent being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission which has been allowed by the impugned order.  The State Commission in its order has recorded the following reasons for reversing the order of the District Forum:

“From the pleadings of parties it is evidence that a cultivator insures his crops with the respondent no.2 i.e. G.I.C.I.  The appellant is merely an agency through whom premium paid by the cultivator passes to

-4-

the insurer.  The question as to what should be method for calculating the crop lo9ss and what should be the quantity of indemnity are taken by the G.I.C.I. and the claim amount is paid by it to the insured.  The G.I.C.I. sends this amount to the insured through the appellant which is just like a post office.  The appellant is a banker and as per the instructions of the Government of India it debits the premium amount from the account of the cultivator and remits it to the G.I.C.I.  In these circumstances the insured i.e. the respondent no.1 cannot be held to be a ‘consumer’ vis-à-vis the appellant.  For the reasons mentioned above the District Forum has clearly erred in fixing liability on the appellant.” 

          It may be stated here that General Insurance Corporation of India, which was not made a party respondent in the complaint, joined the respondent in filing the appeal before the State Commission and took the stand that:

“The G.I.C.I. – respondent no.2 in its written version stated inter-alia that the crop insurance scheme is a social measure.  The appellant used to collect premiums from the cultivators and send a note of it to the nodal office which in turn sends a consolidated proposal area-wise to it (G.I.C.I.) indicating the total number of farmers,

-5-

crop season, year, district, block of the insured along with the total premiums.  After receipt of the yield data for the entire state of Orissa from the Director, Economics and Statistics, the actual yield data was compared with the threshold yield of the notified area and as per the indemnity procedure the loss was

“Short Fall x sum insured

Thresh-Hold yield

(Short fall = Thresh hold yield – Actual yield)”

          In spite of the fact that General Insurance Corporation of India had filed the appeal, the petitioner has not impleaded General Insurance Corporation of India as a party respondent even in this revision petition.

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the respondent was merely an agency through whom the premium paid by the cultivators was passed on to the insurer.  The questions, as to what should be the method for calculating the crop loss and what should be the quantity of indemnity, were to be taken by the General Insurance Corporation of India and the claim amount is to be paid to the insurer.  General Insurance Corporation of India sent this amount to the insured through the respondent which was acting like a Post Office.  The respondent bank did not get any commission or charged

-6-

anything from the petitioner for rendering services.  The State Commission rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a consumer vis-à-vis the respondent.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties as well.  General Insurance Corporation of India was a necessary party which was neither impleaded as a party respondent before the District Forum nor before this Commission.  Dismissed.