JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      The Canara Bank has filed seven Revision Petitions detailed above, against the orders rendered by both the Fora against Canara Bank, which was arrayed as OP-2 in the original complaints filed by the farmers. 

2.      All the matters are identical.  Consequently, we will decide these matters by a common order.  We would also, like the State Commission, take the facts of these cases from the file Canara Bank Versus Seth Prakash Chandra Jain & Ors. In Revision Petition No. 4589 of 2013.

3.      The facts germane to this case are these.  The complainant is the owner of land in Village Bhapel, Patwari Halka No. 74, District Sagar, consisting of Khasra Numbers as detailed in the order of the State Commission.  The entire land measures about 14.20 Hectares.  The complainants took loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the petitioner Bank under the Kisan Credit Card Scheme.  As per the terms of the loan, the crop was to be insured with Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., who was arrayed as OP-1 in the original complaint.  The Canara Bank debited the amount from the premium of the complainant’s account for the insurance of the Kharif crop of Soyabean for the year 2007-2008.  Unfortunately, the Soyabean crop failed due to drought.  The complainant made a claim for the loss of crop but the Insurance Company refused to do the needful. 

4.      The defence set up by the Insurance Company Opposite Party No.1 is that the premium and declaration for the Kharif crop of 2007 with regard to Patwari Halka Nos. 40, 50 and 82 of District Sagar was received, which have already got the compensation.  The principal defence set up by the Insurance Company was that no premium was sent to them for Patwari Halka No. 74, where the land of the complainant is situated. 

5.      The defence set up by the Canara Bank was that for the year 2007-2008, a premium of Rs. 10,500/- was sent to the Insurance Company as premium for the Kharif crop.  It also alleged that the complainant had applied for the loan at the time of cutting of the crop and only after the Madhya Pradesh Government had declared the village as drought affected. 6.      Complainant was filed before the District Forum.  It came to the conclusion that Bank has to compensate the complainant in conformity with the compensation given to the other farmers of the area alongwith Rs. 1500/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as costs.

7.      Aggrieved by that order, First Appeal was filed before the State Commission, which too, dismissed the appeal. 

8.      The counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the entire case swirls round the declaration which was ignored by the Fora below.  The counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards the following letter:-

“Date: 01.12.07

Copy

Zonal Manager

Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited,

Quality Gayobatya, First Floor,

NH-12

Near Maida Mill, Phop-462011

Sir,

Subject: National Agricultural Insurance Schme- Regarding the insurance for loanee for the Kharif Crop-2007.

Ref:       Your Letter No. NAIC/……../Review/2454/2007 dated

    02.11.2007.

It is submitted on the subject cited above that we had sent a demand letter under National Agriculture Insurance Scheme for loanee of Kharif Crop 2007, which was sent back by you for want of montyhly particulars by the Halqa Patwari.  After removing the discrepancies, the same is being sent to you.

Place: Sagar                                                                Yours faithfully

Dated: 11.02.07                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                              Branch Manager

                                                                             Sagar-470002(M.P.)

          Enclosure”

The enclosure contains a list which also includes Patwari Halka Nos 57, 74,80,40,48,5,46,48,44,148,42,41 and No. 4, Distribution month of entry has been shown as September and details of crop is shown as Soyabean.  All these copies are not authenticated.  On the Head of the document, the date is written as 1^st December 2007.  At the end it is shown as 11.02.2007.   Learned counsel for the petitioner could not explain this discrepancy.  It is nowhere stated that the premium was paid in respect of these Halkas. 

9.      Above all, it is not mentioned that how much premium was handed over/paid to the Insurance Company.  These documents carry exiguous value.  There is not even an iota of evidence that premium was handed over to the Insurance Company.

10.    The respondent insurance company has admitted that the Bank had sent the premium and declaration for the Kharif Crop of 2007 with regard to the Patwari Halka No, 40, 50 and 82 of District Sagar.  The Insurance Company has paid the compensation for the loss of crop in those Halka Nos.  However, no premium was sent to the Insurance Company for Patwari Halka No. 74 and other Halka Nos. of the respective complainants.  Insurance Company denied that they are not liable to pay the said amount. The case of the insurance company is that they have received premium of Rs. 10,500/- for Patwari Halka No. 40, 50 and 82 only.  The submission of the Bank hinges upon their oral words.  No documentary evidence saw the light of the day.  If you have paid the premium to the Insurance Company, there must be some record which was kept under the hat for the obvious reasons.  It is rudimentary principle of jurisprudence that the documentary evidence will always get preponderance over the oral evidence because it is well known axiom of law that “men may tell lies but the document cannot”.

11.    It is thus clear that the Bank is responsible for the same.  It stands proved that the mistake was committed by the Bank.  Consequently, the Bank is liable to compensate the complainants as per terms and conditions of the policy which reads as follows:-

“SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR PIs/NODAL BANKS/LOAN DISBURSING POINTS

5.    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 institution only shall make good all such loses”

12.    The contention raised by the petitioner that the loan was taken after the drought was declared by the Government is of no consequence.  There is no documentary evidence to show that the area was declared as “Drought Affected”  by the Government.  Secondly, if the area had already been declared Drought Affected by the time, the Bank should not have given the loan at all, as is clear from Clause II of the operational modalities. 

13.    This is unfortunate that instead of remedying the wrong by complying with the decision of the Consumer Fora, the Bank is trying to brazen out its illegal act by filing these revision petitions.  The Bank is not sensitive about the difficulty faced by the farmers from time to time.  All the Revision Petitions have no merits and the same are hereby dismissed.