Nodal Banks are liable for misreporting in crop insurance applications, impacting farmer compensation; courts can enforce decisions despite available grievance mechanisms.

ORDER :

1. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the award passed by the 3^rd respondent directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,28,575/- to the 1^st respondent herein towards crop damage suffered by her in respect of crops raised by her in Veppankadu Ukkadai Village during the Rabi season of the year 2018-2019, which was covered by petitioner's insurance scheme under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (hereinafter referred to as 'PMFBY' for brevity).

2. The 1^st respondent is a non-loanee farmer, insured her crop raised in the Village of Veppankadu Ukkadai through the 2^nd respondent, Nambivayal Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society (hereinafter referred to as 'Nambivayal PACCS' for brevity). The 1^st respondent suffered crop damage and at the time of settlement of her claim, it came to her knowledge that at the time of submission of application through 2^nd respondent, the name of the Village in which crop was raised was wrongly mentioned as 'Veppankadu' instead of 'Veppankadu Ukkadai'. Under the Crop Assessment Scheme, the loss to the crop in Veppankadu Village was assessed as 14.48% and whereas, the loss to the crops in 'Veppankadu Ukkadai' was assessed as 55.55%. Since the 1^st respondent's Village name was wrongly entered by the 2^nd respondent employees at the time of submission of the application as if, 1^st respondent raised crops in Veppankadu, she was paid insurance compensation amount only at the rate of 14.48% instead of 55.55% which she is really entitled to. The 1^st respondent approached the petitioner/insurer for settlement of balance amount due to her at the rate of 55.55%, on the basis of the letter issued by the Secretary of PACCS, explaining the mistake while entering the data in the portal. Since the grievance of the 1^st respondent was not attended to by the petitioner, the 1^st respondent was constrained to raise a complaint before the 3^rd respondent.

3. It was argued by the petitioner before the 3^rd respondent that at the time of uploading the insurance details on the National Crop Insurance Portal (hereinafter referred to as 'NCIP'), the employees of 2^nd respondent had committed a mistake and mentioned the Village name as 'Veppankadu' instead of 'Veppankadu Ukkadai'. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that it was no way responsible for the settlement of lesser claim for the 1^st respondent and it was due to the wrong entry made by the 2^nd respondent/bank. It is also stated by the petitioner that the obligations of the petitioner under the contract of insurance is guided by the entries made in NCIP by the 2^nd respondent/bank, which is the terminal service point for the farmers and over which, the petitioner/insurance company has no control. It is also stated that the petitioner/insurance company has no wherewithals to verify the correctness of datas entered by the facilitating bank. It is also stated by the petitioner that the claim calculations had been done as per the data downloaded from NCIP, which was in turn uploaded by facilitating bank branch namely the 2^nd respondent. The change with regard to the entry of Village name cannot be considered at this distinct point of time after settlement of the claim amount. It is also stated by the petitioner that under Clause 30 of revised operational guidelines of PMFBY Scheme, there is a Grievance Redressal Mechanism in the name of District Level Grievance Redressal Committee and State Level Grievance Redressal Committee. The complaint made by the petitioner before the 3^rd respondent without approaching the Grievance Redressal Mechanism under the PMFBY Scheme is not at all maintainable.

4. The contentions raised by the petitioner were repelled by 3^rd respondent and an award was passed against the petitioner directing it to pay the above said amount to the 1^st respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly raised the following points:-

(i) the complaint made by the