ANUP K. THAKUR

1.      Under challenge in this Revision Petition No. 1138 of 2016 is the impugned order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna (‘State Commission’, hereafter) dated 17.12.2015.  Vide this order, the State Commission had dismissed Appeal No.517/2009 against the order dated 06.11.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Begusarai (‘District Forum’, hereafter) in Complaint Case No.83/2008. In turn, the District Forum had dismissed this consumer complaint no. 83/2009.  The operative portion of the Forum’s order is reproduced as under:

“In this case the crux of the matter is that none of the complainant had paid the premium of Insurance nor they had given their intention in writing to the bank as to what notified crop they were going to sow or had grown from the loan amount nor any of the crops were insured nor any premium was deducted by the bank.  Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the bank.  The complainant cannot claim any compensation simply because their crops were insured nor any premium was deducted from their account and paid to the Agricultural Insurance Company.  As such the case has no merit and is dismissed but without costs.”

(Ad verbatim per translated record)

2.      Basic facts of the case are that the petitioners/complainants (‘complainants’, hereafter) are loanees of the respondents/OPs/Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Balia, Begusarai (‘OP’, hereafter).  Each complainant had availed a loan of Rs.50,000/- for growing crops on their K.C.C. account (Kisan Credit Card).  They were to be insured under the National Agriculture Insurance scheme, by the Agricultural Insurance Company, against premium to be remitted by the OP.  In 2006-07, allegedly, floods destroyed the Kharif and Rabi crops.   As such, the complainants were entitled to insurance compensation to the extent of Rs.50,000/.  This however was not credited to their accounts for the reason, per the complainants, that the premium had not been paid by the bank to the National Agricultural Insurance Company.  As it was the duty of the bank to have paid the premium, alleging deficiency in service, consumer complaint no. 83/08 was filed before the District Forum. This was contested by the OP.  Admitting that the complainants were loanees of the bank, OP held that the complainants had never disclosed the crop they were intending to grow nor informed whether it was a notified crop in the season and in the area where they intended to grow this crop. Therefore, the OP was not at fault in not having paid premium on their behalf from their accounts to the nodal bank and through it, to the insurance company.

3.      The District Forum noted that the OP was able to show that insurance cover was available only for notified crop in the notified