O R D E R

Heard both sides.

2.The writ petitioner is a banking company. The second respondent is an agriculturist. He availed loan from the petitioner bank in the year 2016. The loan was to be repaid within five years. He had already enrolled himself under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima YojanaCrop Insurance (PMFBY). The premium was debited from the second respondent's account. His case is that though he suffered crop losses for three consecutive years (ie.) 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, the insurance amount was not paid. He submitted petition dated 17.06.2019 before the District Legal Services Authority, Ramanathapuram. The petitioner herein was the sole respondent. Notice was issued. Since the bank failed to appear, an ex-parte award was passed on 30.09.2019 directing them to pay the award amount with interest @ 6% p.a. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition. Her contentions are as follows:-

(i) The permanent Lok Adalat did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.

(ii) The petition suffered from the vice of non-joinder since the concerned insurance company was not impleaded.

(iii) The impugned award was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

(iv) The second respondent ought to have approached the District Level Grievance Redressal Committee (DGRC) and not the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ramanathapuram.

She pointed out that subsequent to the passing of the award, the claim of the second respondent in respect of the last two years (ie.) 2017-2018, 2018-2019 was settled. She called upon this Court to set aside the impugned award and relegate the second respondent to go before the District Grievance Redressal Committee.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent admitted that after debiting premium for the year 2016-2017 from the second respondent's account, the bank had remitted the same with the fifth respondent. Though the debiting and crediting was made on 03.11.2016, the insurance company informed the petitioner bank only on 26.06.2019 that Ramanathapuram District was not one of the Districts for which they had to render insurance service under the scheme for the year concerned. The insurance company proposed to refund the premium as it was wrongly remitted. He called upon this Court to dismiss this writ petition as far as the fifth respondent is concerned.

5.The official respondents did not take any stand and they left the matter to the decision of this Court.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that for the fault committed by the petitioner bank, the second respondent cannot suffer. He drew my attention to the various provisions of the scheme. He pointed out that if the petitioner had failed to credit the premium with the concerned insurance company, they have to bear the consequential liability. He also submitted that the case on hand would very much fall within the scope of Chapter VI-A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. He called upon this Court to sustain the impugned award and dismiss the writ petition.

7.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. The Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, New Delhi has issued operational guidelines for implementing the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY). The primary object of the scheme is to provide financial support to farmers suffering crop loss/damage arising out of unforeseen events. One of the preconditions for implementation of the scheme is issuance of notification by State Government. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O(Rt).No.270 Agriculture ((AP6) Department dated 23.08.2016. The abstract of the said Government Order is as follows:-

“Agriculture – Notification of Crops, District, Firkas and Revenue Village for Agriculture Crops & Horticulture Crops for notification of insur