##PAGE1##

Appeal Nos.: Agriculture Insurance Co. of India & Ors. Date of SC/22/FA/255/2025 Vs. Pronouncement:

25/03/2026 Puniram Patel

AFR / NAFR CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PANDRI, RAIPUR

Date of Institution: 01/05/2025 Date of Final Hearing: 26/02/2026

Date of Pronouncement: 25/03/2026 APPEAL No.- SC/22/FA/255/2025

IN THE MATTER OF :

1. Regional Manager, Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited, Regional Office, Jeevan Prakash, Jeevan Beema Marg, Pandri,

Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) … Opposite Party No.1/ Appellant No.1

2. District Manager, Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited, Shri Ravindranath Yadav, District Manager,

Office: District Director, Agriculture & Secretary, , District Level Paryavekshan Samiti (PMFBY),

Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) … Opposite Party No.2/ Appellant No.2 Both through: Shri Shobhit Mishra, Advocate

Vs.

Puniram Patel, S/o. Shri Barat Ram Patel, Aged 60 years, R/o. Ward No.12, Deogaon, Raigarh,

Tah. & Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) … Complainant/ Respondent Through: Smt. Manju Nayak, Advocate

CORAM: -

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT HON’BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER

PRESENT: -

Shri Shobhit Mishra, Advocate for the appellants. Smt. Manju Nayak, Advocate for the respondent.

O RD E R

PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT

This appeal, under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter called “the Act” for short), is preferred against order dated 06.03.2025 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raigarh (CG) (hereinafter called “District Commission” for short) in Complaint Case No.CC/2020/208 whereby the complaint was partly allowed directing the opposite parties/ appellants herein to pay within 45 days an amount of Rs.49,853/- (Forty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Three) with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim submission till the date of payment, Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) towards compensation for

mental agony and cost of litigation Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand).

Allowed. Page 1 of 4

Appeal Nos.: Agriculture Insurance Co. of India & Ors. Date of SC/22/FA/255/2025 Vs. Pronouncement:

25/03/2026 Puniram Patel

2. Aggrieved the opposite parties have preferred this appeal, mainly on the ground that the complainant/ respondent has not impleaded the Bank before the District Commission, whereas the Bank, being nodal agency is necessary party as the deficiency in service has been committed

by the Bank by not filling the correct entries.

3. Final arguments heard. Record Perused.

4. Referring to the Condition No.35.5.8 and 35.5.13 of the Operational Guidelines issued by the Government of India for implementation of the PMFBY scheme, learned counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties has argued that it was the duty of the Bank to ensure farmer are not deprived of any benefit under the scheme due to error/ omission/ commission of the concerned Branch/ PACS, and in case of such errors, the concerned agencies shall have to make good of such all losses. Reference is also made towards Condition No.12 and 26 of the notification dated 24.10.2024 of the Government of Chhattisgarh in this regard. It is prayed that the impugned order, being erroneous in the light of above conditions of the Operational Guidelines of the GoI and Notification of the Government of Chhattisgarh, be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the District Commission for hearing afresh after incorporating the concerned Bank in the array of

opposite party.

5. Per contra learned counsel for the complainant/ respondent has supported the impugned order and opposed the proposal of remitting the

matter back to the District Commission.

6. It is an admitted position, as mentioned in affidavit dated 27.10.2023 of the respondent/ complainant, that for the agriculture insurance under PMFBY for total land area 3.885 ha, premium of Rs.3,108/- was paid on 30.07.2019 after deducting the same by the Bank of Baroda, Raigarh Branch from Kisan Credit Card. In support which certified copy of