MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER

         Petitioner was the third opposite party before the District Forum, where the first respondent Pandillapalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (in short ‘Primary Society’) had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

        Very briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant had advanced loan to 193 members during Kharif season of 2002.  As per the scheme of Crop Insurance, the Primary Society deducted the insurance amount and sent it to the third respondent and when the crop was affected and the society preferred a claim with the opposite parties, it was settled only in respect of 66 members.  The claims of 127 members were rejected on the ground that they did not have Insurance cover.  It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed by the Primary Society before the District Forum, who allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.5,55,824/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. from 17.09.2003 till the date of realization.  Rs.5,000/- was awarded as compensation and Rs.1,000/- was awarded as costs.  Aggrieved by this order, only the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed, hence this revision petition before us.

        We heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the material on record.  We reproduce para 10, 11 & 12 of the order passed by the District Forum, which read as follows:-

“10. Opposite parties admitted that the complainant society remit the premium collected from its borrowers in lumsum to the second opposite party on 5.6.2002 and 29.06.2002 by way of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 for 127 members.

11. It is admitted fact by the opposite parties that the societies has received the insurance claim in respect of 66 members.  The contention of the opposite party no. 3 is that the complainant has to prove strictly that the insurance premium has been paid to the insurance company through Nodal Bank, Prakasm DCC, Bank.  We feel that for the purpose of collecting premiums the opposite party No. 2 acted as an agent to the opposite party No.3.  Any mistake in remittance of the premium amounts done by the opposite party no. 2, the opposite party no. 3 also liable to for the acts or omissions committed by the opposite party No. 2 in the capacity of agent of opposite party No. 3.  Once opposite party No. 3 has entrusted power to collect the premium from the parties, the opposite party No. 2 has become an agent to the opposite party No.3 for the purpose of collecting the premiums so, the contention of the opposite party No.3 is that opposite party No. 3 not remitted the premium amount is not accepted by us and it is between them to identify who were at fault.  If they find any default on the part of the opposite party no.2, opposite party no. 3 has at liberty to proceed against opposite party no. 2 but not to cause any less the complainant society who paid the premium of the opposite party No. 2 within time.

12. Admittedly there is no dispute regarding to the premium paid by the complainant.  Payment is made to others of the complainant’s society who entitled for the insurance amount. The plea of the opposite party No. 3 is estopped as he paid the amount to other 66 members in the same society. ”

        The State Commission by a detailed order agreed with the analysis and reasoning for accepting the complaint in following terms:-

“The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that under the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, no independent policies were issued in favour of the farmers and the premium is directly deducted from the loan or directly collected by banks and hence if the premium is not collected, no relief can be sought against the insurance company.  It is also submitted that the claims of members of the society whose premiums were duly paid and received were settled.  It is submitted that payment of compensation is governed by National Agricultural Insurance Scheme and there is no contract to contrary between the farmers either loanee or non-loanee.

We have gone through the entire record.  It is an admitted fact that the society has received the insurance claim in respect of 66 members.  For the purpose of collecting premiums, the second opposite party is acted as an agent to the appellant.  Hence any mistake done by the second opposite party in remitting the premium the appellant is liable for the said act committed by the second opposite party.  Admittedly there is no dispute regarding the premium paid by the complainant.  Since there is deficiency of service on the part of the second opposite party in non-remittance of the premium amount to the appellant / third opposite party for which the appellant is also liable for the mistake or omission committed by the second opposite party agent.  The District Forum in our view has rightly allowed the complaint and directed the appellant and the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.5,55,824/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 17.09.2003 till the date of realisation together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.1000/-.  The order passed by the District Forum in our opinion does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers.”

        After hearing the arguments and the above findings returned by both the lower fora, we are left in no doubt that fault, if any, was on the part of the second and third respondent and undoubtedly the second and third respondents were the agents of the petitioner.  For fault of the agent, the complainant(s) cannot be made to suffer.

        In the aforementioned circumstances, we have no hesitation in accepting the findings returned by both the lower fora.  This revision petition is devoid of merit.  Dismissed.

         However, if there is any dispute between the petitioner and the agents, i.e., respondent no. 2 & 3, petitioner is free to proceed against the agents before a competent court if permitted by law.