SARVA HARYANA GRAMIN BANK Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') assails the order dtd. 1/12/2022 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal no. 325 of 2022 disallowing the Appeal and upholding the order of the District Forum in complaint no. 155 of 2018 dtd. 12/5/2022. As the facts of the case are common in all the revision petitions, hence, it is proposes to pass a common order with facts being taken from Revision Petition no.689 of 2023 as the lead case.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that under the Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojna (in short, 'the PMFBY), the appellant Bank had been authorised to provide the details of farmer beneficiaries to respondent nos.2 and 3 of (insurance company) who were insured under the said scheme. Respondent no.1, who was an agriculturist owning 7 acres of land and was a resident of village Siana Saidan, held a KCC account with the appellant herein. In the 2016-2017 Kharif season he had sown paddy crop and applied for insurance cover under the PMFBY from respondent nos.2 and 3. As per the scheme, the uploading of details of the farmers and their agricultural holding, crop sown etc., in the government portal was the responsibility of the appellant bank which is a Rural Bank. A sum of Rs.2695.00 was deducted by the appellant from the Bank account of respondent no.1 on 27/7/2016 towards the premium for the PMFBY Group Insurance Policy of the crop sown for the year 2016-2017 season in respect of respondent no.1. Due to heavy rain in August and September 2019, the paddy crop was destroyed, which was certified by the concerned authority such as Block Development Officer, Pehowa and DDA, Kurukshetra. However, the insurance claim was not paid on the grounds that while the respondent was a resident of Siana Saidan village, the claim of insurance pertained to village Zulmat, details for which had not been entered on the portal by the appellant bank. The finding of the District Forum, which was approached by way of complaint, was that appellant had wrongly declared the village of the complainant to respondent nos.1 and 2 (Insurance Company). It was not disputed that it was the primary duty of the appellant to upload the data of the farmers in the Government Portal regarding PMFBY. Hence, it was contended by respondent nos.2 and 3 that the appellant herein (Bank) was liable to pay the amount of the claim as per the operational guidelines in paragraph XVII of the Guidelines of the scheme as per which financial institutions were to be responsible for all the omissions and commissions committed by them. As it was evident that, prima facie, an error had been committed by the Bank in remitting the amount of premium recovered from the agriculturists in the name of the village incorrectly, the Bank was held to be liable to reimburse the loss. Accordingly, the District Forum held that the appellant liable for reimbursement of Rs.92,527.00 to respondent no.1/ complainant along with Rs.10,000.00 as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.5000.00 as litigation expenses to be paid within 45 days of the order.

(3.) The appeal filed by the appellant herein before the State Commission also similarly held, in terms of the liability of the Bank, and with the finding that the amount of Rs.92,527.00 be paid by the Bank based on the revenue records of the Jamabandi for the years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 in respect of village Zulmat. It was therefore, held that there was no case made out for interference in the impugned order of the District Forum.