ORDER

(Passed on 06 /09/ 2023) The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. (Mrs) Monika Malik , Member :

All the aforesaid appeals are taken up together as common point is involved in the matter. This order shall govern disposal of all the aforesaidthree appeals.

For convenience facts of the case are taken from the FA No.263/2020, unless otherwise stated.

2. FA No.263/2020 by the opposite party no.1/appellant- Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘bank’) is directed against the order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal - 4 - Commission, Sagar (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.309/2018 whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant /respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’).

3. Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant is the agriculturist. He is the owner of 6.25 hectares of agricultural land in the village Mahulkhas, Patwari Halka No.8 (old Patwari Hakla Number was 116), Rajasva Nirikshak Mandal Malthoun, Vikaskhand Malthoun, District Sagar. The complainant had opened KCC account no.0788008800004524 regarding the aforesaid agricultural lands, with the appellant / bank. He had got his kharif crops for the year 2017 insured, via bank with the respondent / HDFC Ergo General Insurance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Insurance Company’) through ‘ Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna ’ and had paid Rs.3,7 50/- towards premium. The premium amount as aforesaid was deducted by the bank on 16.08.2017 and the same was forwarded to the insurance company. It is alleged that he had sown soyabean crop on his agricultural land, which was destroyed due to natural calamity.

Despite that, the opposite parties have not given crop insurance claim to the complainant.

Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached to the District Commission seeking relief.

- 5 -

4. The appellant / bank in its reply before the District Commission admitted of deducting the premium from the KCC account of the complainant. It is submitted that the responsibility regarding payment of insurance claim lies with the Insurance Company and therefore bank is not liable in the instant matter.

5. The respondent / Insurance Company in its reply before the District Commission stated that it was the responsibility of the bank to have ensured that it had provided correct information, regarding agriculturists to the Insurance Company. As per the details provided on portal by the appellant / bank, agricultural land of the complainant has been shown in the village Ata Karnelgarh, Block Malthoun and in the village Ata Karnelgarh there was short fall of 10.2% in the soyabean crop for the year 2017, compensation of Rs.19,086.55/- towards crop insurance as per the scheme has been paid to the complainant. The bank is liable on account of providing incorrect information and the Insurance Company is not responsible in the instant matter.

6. The District Commission partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and directed the appellant / bank to pay to the complainant compensation for the loss caused to his kharif soyabean 2017 crop situated in the village Mahulkhas within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order failing which the amount shall carry interest @8% from the date of filing of the complaint till payment. In addition, the District Commission has also directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- with another sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs.

7. Heard. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-bank argued that the premium amount sent by the bank was accepted by the Insurance Company and it had insured the complainant’s crop under “Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna”. He further argued that it was t