IMPORTANT POINT
Nodal Bank — It is duty of the nodal bank to distribute the claim settlement amount to the eligible farmers as per guidelines issued by the Government.

ORDER (COMMON)

Sunita C. Bagewadi, Member—The Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 being aggrieved by the common order dated 26-02-2020 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Dharwad in Complaint Nos.128/2018, 129/2018 and 130/2018 respectively.

2. The Appellant is the same in all these Appeals and the facts involved in these Appeals are one and the same. Hence, these Appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by a common order.

3. The brief facts of the complaints are that the complainants are agriculturists and owners of agricultural lands situated at Nayakanahulikatti village, Taluk and District Dharwad. In order to avoid unforeseen natural perils especially draught, the complainants insured their crops during 2015-16 Kharif Season under the Crop Insurance Scheme. Even though the complainants had taken crop protection care, they have lost their insured crops on account of acute shortage of water due to draught. On account of this loss, the complainants have informed the OPs and requested them to arrange for compensating them by paying insurance claim. But the OPs did not heed to their requests. That some of the other neighboring farmers who are in same position and lost their insured crops, have received the entire insurance amount. The non-settlement and non-payment of insurance claim, it amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, these complaints.

4. The Opposite party No.1 to 3 appeared through their advocates. The 1st OP filed written version denying the allegations of non settlement of insurance claim and also alleged deficiency in service as false. The 1st opposite party submitted that the liability if any on the part of the 1st OP is subject to proper payment of premium within the prescribed time, proper filling of declaration form and restricted only to the premium received for notified area, crop and correct sum insured.

It is submitted by the 1st opposite party that during Kharif 2015-16 Season, the 1st OP has released entire estimated claims to all concerned nodal banks with declaration wise claim details and that nodal banks have already settled the eligible claim amount through branch banks to individual farmers account after verifying the individual farmer details. Since the original estimated claim amount had been sent to nodal banks by the 1st opposite party vide letter dated 20.09.2016 in Dharwad district, there are no claims pending with the 1st OP as alleged by complainants and it is only the nodal bank or branch are answerable or liable for the claims. Hence all the complaints are not maintainable and liable to be dismissed against the 1st opposite party.

5. The 2nd opposite party further submitted that the role of bank is like an agent collecting the premium from farmers and to send it to the insurance company and thereafter to pay or credit the claim if settled by insurance company to the accounts of farmers and the OP.2 has done its duty promptly and there is no deficiency of service and hence complaints be dismissed.

6. The 3rd opposite party contending that during Kharif 2015-16, the 3rd opposite party had not done any policy in Karnataka State and that the tender was not submitted by ICICI Lombard in Karnataka for Kharif 2015 and the claim of complainants does not pertaining to the 3rd opposite party and there is no insurance policy issued by this 3rd opposite party and therefore the question of settlement of claim does not arise. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaints.

7. After trial, the District Consumer Commission, Dharwad has allowed the complaints against the Opposite Party No.2/Vijaya Bank (Now called as Bank of Baroda), Managundi branch and dismissed the complaints against the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 3.

8. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Opposite Party No.2/ Vijaya Bank (Now called as Bank of Baroda), Managundi branch filed these Appeals before this Commission.

9. Heard the arguments. Appellants have filed written arguments in all three cases.

10. On perusal of the cer