Per Hon’ble DR. S.K. Kakade, Presiding Member. 

1)      This is an appeal filed by State Bank of India, main branch Buldhana through its Chief Manager against the respondents Motesingh Malkhan Rabade and Sau Ramkali Motesingh Rabade and Regional Manager, Agriculture Insurance Co.Ltd. Fort Mumbai, against the order passed by District Consumer Forum Buldhana in C.C.160/2012 order dated 26/08/2015 in which the appellant was directed to pay compensation to the original complainant. (The appellant and respondents shall be referred by their original nomenclature).

2)        Brief facts for deciding this appeal are as follows :-

3)        The original complainants Mr. and Mrs.Rabade residing at Mouze-Taroda, Taluka-Motala, District Buldhana are the owners of land as per the following description :-

4)      Respondent No.1 owns two hectare in Longhat Shiwar, Gat No.70 and two hector land in Tarapur Shiwar, Gat No.24, while respondent No.2 owns 0.4 hector in Longhat Shiwar, Gat No. 80 and 0.6 hector in Gat No.70 of the same Longhat Shiwar (+) 1.8 hector in Tarapur Shiwar, Gat No.124, thus total land owned by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in 10 hectors. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 cultivated the land as horticulture and they have account with the appellant bank for crop loans. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are availing this facility very often. Since the appellant has tie-up with Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., Divisional Office at Mumbai the bank availed this special facility of providing crop insurance through Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. and for the same the premium of Rs.3,000/- per hector was debited by the bank towards the premium of crop insurance company provided by the insurance company. This insurance was covered the loss in the agriculture due to failure of the crops. In the year 2011, when the crop insurance was provided to the respondent Nos.1 and 2, there was draught due to which the respondent Nos.1 and 2 suffered from loss and the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. after detailed enquiry  sanctioned Rs.74,000- per hector to insure the loss of crop and deposited the compensation amount of Rs.49,80,000/- with the bank, for disbursing to insured farmers. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 claimed for compensation for the loss of crop that was insured by the insurance company. After receiving the application by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for disbursal of the compensation amount that was already deposited by the insurance company with the bank, the bank on its own informed the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the said scheme is only for Taluka Buldhana and that since only two hectors of the land of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is situated in Taluka Buldhana, accordingly the respondent Nos.1 and 2 will receive the compensation amount. Further bank on its own informed the insurance company to refund the premium paid for remaining eight hectors of the land. Aggrieved by this communication from the bank the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in this appeal/the original complainants approached to learned District Consumer Forum Buldhana. The appellant SBI of Buldhana defended the complaint by filing necessary documentation. The learned District Consumer Forum Buldhana after going through all the documents and hearing this complaint finally allowed the complaint partly and directed the bank i.e. present appellant to pay the compensation amount Rs.7,50,000/- alongwith the interest @ 8% p.a. and awarded Rs.10,000/- towards mental and physical harassment and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the complaint. Aggrieved by this order original O.P.No.1 SBI Buldhana preferred appeal against this order and filed the same before this Commission.

5)      Considering rival contentions of both parties and the scope of the appeal the Commission heard both parties in final hearing and gone through the documents before the Commission.

6)      The learned advocate for the appellant while narrating the facts of the case submitted that the insurance availed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 was weather based crop insurance. As per his submissions the loss suffered by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 during horticulture cultivation mainly banana crop was insured by the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. The said scheme was extended to the lands in Buldhana Taluka only. The total loss in 10 hectares land in the name of respondent Nos.1 and 2 the husband and wife, was distributed between Buldhana Taluka and Motala Taluka as two hectare and eight hectares respectively and accordingly the loss of banana crop was insured only on two hectors of the land. Since the crop insurance was availed through the bank it was the duty of the bank to pay the compensation to the consumer as per the situation of the land in Buldhana Taluka, though the premium of Rs.3000/- per hector for all ten hectors i.e. Rs.30,000/- was collected towards the crop insurance only two hectors of the land in Buldhana Taluka was entitled to receive compensation. According to learned advocate for appellant the respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not provide the detailed information about the location and situation of the land. The amount of premium was calculated for all the ten hectors of the land. When this mistake came to the notice of the bank officials this was corrected and hence compensation for land of horticulture is only two hector of the land was to be compensated. The bank followed rules for compensation and the bank acted in accordance with the rules. According to him learned District Consumer Forum at Buldhana was wrong in considering that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for compensation for the loss for the total of the land owned by the respondent  Nos.1 and 2, as order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum Buldhana is not just and legal, learned advocate for the appellant prayed for allowing the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum Buldhana.

7)      Learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that such defence was not taken in the written statement filed by the appellants before the District Consumer Forum Buldhana. Further the premium for this crop insured is already paid and debited by the bank on 19/11/2011. He further invited the attention of the bench to the statement of the bank account of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that shows the premium amount of Rs.30,000/- was debited from the account of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The learned advocate prayed for  confirming the order passed by learned District Consumer Forum Buldhana since it is just legal and proper.

8)      Learned advocate for respondent No.3 i.e. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. invited the attention to written statement that was filed before the District Consumer Forum Buldhana and that the scheme was applicable to the land located in Buldhana Taluka only also referred to the procedure and guidelines for implementation of the scheme. The insurance company acted upon the information that was received while forwarding proposals for obtaining crop insurance and hence based of the information received through bank. The respondent No.3 has already sanctioned complete amount Rs.75,000/- per hector for totally 10 hectors of the land owned by respondent Nos.1 and 2. He also referred to page No.62 and 63 of appeal compilation that spell out the nature and guidelines of coverage of insurance and the responsibility of the bank. According to learned advocate for respondent No.3 the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount since already the claim of respondent Nos.1 and 2 was sanctioned and the amount was deposited with the appellant bank. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal as against respondent No.3.

9)      We have gone through the records after final hearing of this appeal. We have noted that  the appellant bank with its tie-up with the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. collected the premium for all the land i.e. ten hectors to total Rs.30,000/- premium was collected and deposited with the insurance company. While collecting the premium though the respondent Nos.1 and 2 informed the bank regarding the division of land owned by them the officials of the bank overlooked this information. It was only after the compensation amount was sanctioned by the insurance company and actually transferred the same amount with the bank, on its own the bank officials came with the details of process and guidelines and then allowed the compensation of only two hectors of land which was located in Buldhana Taluka. Thus the officials of the bank sent back to remaining amount and also sent the request letter to the insurance company to refund the premium paid for remaining eight hectors. In our view the bank collected the premium by debiting the same amount for the total land of ten hectors. It is only when there was real loss of the crop, the division of the land was taken into account while compensating the respondent Nos.1 and 2. According to us this is unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service for providing the baking service  to the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

10)      During the pendancy of this appeal the appellant filed bank statement of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 showing that already Rs.1,50,000/- was paid as compensation towards loss of banana crop in two hectors while the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed an application for granting permission for not pressing the filing of the documents that were filed before the District Forum Buldhana and this application was  dated 12/04/2018. The said application filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 28/04/2022 was accepted, on record.

11)        We have gone through the order passed by learned District Consumer Forum, Buldhana. Learned Forum has considered all the details of the guidelines, procedures as well as the role of appellant SBI and came to the conclusion that the appellant was deficient in service for not paying total insurance claim. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum Buldhana while holding the appellant i.e. SBI responsible for this deficient service, and a well reasoned order was passed by learned District Consumer Forum Buldhana. So we pass the following order.

//ORDER//

i.        Appeal is hereby dismissed with cost to quantified to Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the appellant bank to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 within two month from the receipt of copy of this order.

ii.       Copy of order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.