Banks under PMFBY are accountable for accurate reporting of insured details, with liability for misreporting leading to claim denials.

ORDER

DR.INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER

1. These 9 Second Appeals ( SAs) have been filed against the common order dated 09.05.2025 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh, whereby the appeals filed by the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited (Bank) / Appellant(s) herein were dismissed and orders of the District Commission ( passed through separate similar orders) were upheld. As issues / law points involved are the same in these SAs, these are taken up together, with SA No. 606 of 2025 filed by the Appellant ( Bank) as lead case . For sake of convenience, parties will also be referred to as they were arrayed before District Forum. List of SAs covered under this order, covering basic details, is given at Annexure-I. Appellant filed Written Arguments / Synopsis 17.10.2025.

2. The issue pertains to insurance claims under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana ( PMFBY) issued by Government of India, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare. Agriculture National Insurance Company was selected as insurer( Implementing Agency) under the PMFBY. Govt, of Madhya Pradesh issued a notification(s) under the scheme for the insurance of Rabi Wheat .Crop of the year 2017-18. The operational guidelines of the scheme delineate the roles and responsibilities of each involved entity, in particular the Insurance Company and financial institution concerned.

3. Complainants before the District Forum were various farmers of District Betul of Madhya Pradesh, having agricultural land of various extents who participated in the PMFBY of Central Government, as notified by Government of Madhya Pradesh for insurance of their crops. There are two categories of farmers ( a) loanee farmers i.e. who availed seasonal agricultural loans from banks / financial institutions, for whom it was compulsory to participate in the PMFBY and ( b) non-loanee farmers i.e. who did not avail agricultural credit facilities from the banks / financial institutions, for whom it was optional to participate in the PMFBY.

4. Brief facts of the case as presented by the Complainant and as emerged from SA No. 606 of 2025, order of the State Commission, order of District Commission and other case records are that complainant Gurudas Solanki held agricultural land in Gram Masod, Patwari Halka No. 57, Tehsil Bhainsdehi, District Betul, Madhya Pradesh, which was insured under PMFBY. It is the case of the complainant that he took loan from District Cooperative Bank ( Bank) for agricultural work on the said agricultural land Further, the wheat crop of the year 2017-18 for the Rabi Season sown by the complainant on the said agricultural land was destroyed due to natural calamity, due to which its production became minimal. Under the PMFBY, the Revenue Department and Land Records Branch wrongly assessed the crop loss of the complainant, due to which crop insurance amount was not received. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed the Consumer Complainant before the District Commission Betul and the District Commission vide order dated 30.10.2023 allowed the complaint only against the Bank and dismissed the complaint against other opposite parties before the District Commission. Being aggrieved, the Bank preferred appeals ( First Appeal) before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 09.05.2025 dismissed all the appeals ( common order for 9 FAs). Therefore, the Appellant (s) is before us now in the present Second Appeal.

5. Appellant has challenged the order of the State Commission mainly on the following grounds:

a. State Commission failed to appreciate clause VI (2) (a) of the Operational Guidelines of PMFBY as per which Scheme was to operate on the principle of