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 Area Approach in selected defined areas called Insurance Unit. Further, State Government was to notify the level of the Insurance Unit either to be a village / village Panchayat or any other equivalent unit for major crops. In the instant case the notified level was Patwari Halka. As per provisions of Section XI of the Operational Guidelines of the Scheme, the loss assessment has to be conducted for any given Insurance Unit as one. Thereafter, claims are also settled on the basis of such loss assessment.

                          b. The Patwari Halka so reported by the Appellant Bank was infact correct.

                          c. State Commission failed to observe that under the Operational Guidelines of the Scheme, although the consolidated proposals are to be sent by the Nodal Bank to the Insurance Companies, the proposals are designed by the insurance companies themselves on the point of exactly which details are to be sought from the insured farmers. The Nodal Banks have no prerogative in ascertaining the same as they are not privty to the contract of insurance. The appellant has provided all the details which were sought by respondent no.2.

                          d. Appellant is the only Nodal agency burdened with the limited responsibility of providing the information of the insured farmers to the insurance companies. The privity of insurance contract lay between the respondent no.2 and the insured farmers. It was the respondent no.2 who was entering into a contract of insurance, it is the obligation of respondent no.2 only to pay the compensation under the policy.

                          e. Both the Appellant and the respondent no.2 Insurance Company were opposite parties before the District Forum and allegations of misreporting were raised by respondent no.2 and not the respondent no.1 / complainant. Thus, the Appellant had no opportunity to rebut / controvert these allegations, being an opposite party themselves.

                          f. Respondent no.2 has not produced any evidence to prove its case that it was the Appellant who is responsible for misreporting of the farmers' data.

6. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. Learned counsel for the Appellant apart from repeating the points which have been stated in para 4 argued that it was categorically pleaded that contract of insurance subsisted between the respondent no.1 / complainant and respondent no.2 Insurance Company, hence any non-payment of insurance claim cannot be faulted on the Appellant. It is further argued by the appellant that they have furnished all details correctly as per the prescribed format on the portal and as per these details, the notified level name is Patwar Halka. He further contended that although the name of Patwar Halka is not given in the list, the counsel claimed that this Patwar Halka has a code 00057. The list further shows that the notification ID Code (insurance unit code) of this particular case ( SA No. 606 of 2025) is 00057 and the IU name is Raksi. It is also argued that liability has been fixed on the bank by the lower fora on the ground that land of the farmer was in Patwar Halka 57, Kendra Masod, further contending that no information was sought on Patwar Halka. The list further shows that the notification IU Code (insurance unit code) of this particular case ( SA No. 574 of 2025) is 00057 and the IU name is Raksi.

7. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer's Welfare, Govt, of India launched PMFBY on 18.02.2016 and published the operational guidelines. Before we proceed further with the case, it is considered necessary to have a detailed look at the operational guidelines of PMFBY. Some of the important features / clauses of PMFBY are stated below in brief ( clause wise, with clause number as given in the guidelines).

                          Objective of the Scheme: Interalia,supporting sustainable production in Agriculture sector by way of providing financial support to farmers suffering crop loss / damage arising out of unforeseen events.

                          2. Compulsory Component: All farmers availing Seasonal Agricultural Operations ( SAO) loans from Financial Institutions ( i.e.loanee farmers) for the notified crop(s) would be covered compulsorily.

                           VI. Notification

                           Xxxxx

                          2(a) The scheme shall operate on the principle of Area Approach in the selected Defined Areas called Insurance Unit ( IU). State Government / UT will notify Crops and Defined areas covered during the season in accordance with decision taken in the meeting of SLCCCI. State / UT Government should notify as an insurance unit. Village / village Panchayat or any other equivalent unit for major crops. For other crops it may be a unit of size above the level of Village / village Panchayat.

                          XVII. Important Conditions/Clauses Applicable for Coverage of Risks XXX

                          2. In case of any substantial misreporting by nodal bank / branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concerned bank only shall be liable for such mis-reporting.

                          xxx Lead Bank/Nodal Bank/Administrative office of Commercial banks/ RRBs XXX

                          e) Lead bank/Nodal Banks should ensure that all the eligible crop loans/seasonal operational loans taken for notified crop(s) are fully insured and the conditions stated in the declarations submitted have been complied with. No farmer should be deprived from insurance cover. Nodal banks therefore, should make all out efforts and pursue their branches for enrolling all eligible loanee farmers and interested non-loanee farmers under crop insurance. In case, claims have arisen during crop season then respective bank and its branches would be responsible to make payment of the admissible claims to loanee farmers who were deprived from insurance cover to their crops.

                          Lending Banks/RFIS Under administrative mechanism, banks are designated as terminal service points for farmers. Hence, it is their duty to ensure compulsory coverage of all eligible loanee farmers and all interested non-loanee farmers. In case of any misreporting by Nodal Bank/branch/PACS in case of farmers coverage, concerned bank only will be liable for such mis- reporting and its consequences.

8. Section 51(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 envisage Second Appeal if it involves substantial question of law. Section 51 (3) states that such substantial question of law should be stated in the memorandum of appeal. In the present case ( FA / 606/2025) following substantial question of law have been listed in the Memorandum of Appeal A. Whether the Hon'ble State Commission erred in law by imposing liability upon the Appellant Bank in disregard of the Operational Guidelines of the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY), which recognise banks as mere intermediaries for premium collection and data transmission, and not as insurers liable for claims? B. Whether the Hon'ble State Commission failed to correctly interpret the doctrine of privity of contract by fastening liability upon the Appellant Bank, despite the absence of any contractual nexus between the Appellant and the Respondent No. 1 farmer concerning risk coverage or claim settlement under the said Scheme? C. Whether the Hon'ble State Commission erred in law by ignoring that under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana guidelines, claims are to be settled on an 'Area Approach' basis for the notified Insurance Unit (IU), and that any mention of a different name, even if assumed to be incorrect, would not affect the loss assessment under the said Scheme?

                          D. Whether the Hon'ble State Commission misapplied the burden of proof by presuming deficiency in service on part of the Appellant Bank, despite no evidence being adduced by the Respondent No. 2 to show that the bank was required to furnish Patwari Halka Kendra information?

9. Ne have carefully gone through the order of the State Commission, District Commission, other relevant records and contentions of the appellant herein in the light of the operational guidelines of the scheme in question. There are concurrent findings of both the Fora below against the appellant Bank with respect to furnishing of wrong information of the insured farmers / complainants, which led to the non payment of the insured amounts. The State Commission has considered the rival contentions of the parties. In this regard, extract of relevant paras of the order of the State Commission is reproduced below:

                          5. As per the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant bank, the insurance premium amount of Rs. 997.50/- was deducted on 15/01/2018 from the KCC account No. 194000429225 of respondent No. 1/complainant for crop insurance under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana for the Rabi wheat crop of the year 2017-18, in respect of 1.990 hectare agricultural land situated in Village Masod, Patwari Halka No. 57 Masod, Tehsil Bhainsdehi. The total insurance premium amount of Rs. 6,80,610/- of 716 insured farmers covered under respondent No. 3 society, whose correct name is Primary Agricultural Credit Service Cooperative Society Limited, Bhainsdehi, not Primary Agricultural Credit Service Cooperative Society Limited, Jhallar, including the said premium amount was received by the appellant bank on 16/01/2018. The said amount was sent by the appellant bank to District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Betul for sending it to respondent No. 2 insurance company. District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Betul was the nodal bank under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana in question and including the said insurance premium amount of Rs. 6,80,610/-, the total insurance premium amount of Rs 25,52,235/-of the insured farmers of other Primary Agricultural Credit Service Cooperative Societies was remitted by it to respondent No. 2 insurance company through UTR No. CBIAC18030206334 on 30/01/2018, which was also received by it.

                          6. According to the argument, in the information given by the appellant bank on the concerned crop insurance portal regarding the KCC account No. 194000429225 of respondent No.1/complainant, only the Patwari Halka No. 57 Masod of his land has been mentioned. In the said Patwari Halka No. 57 Masod, 50 percent damage was also found in the Rabi wheat crop of the year 2017-18. In such a situation, it was the responsibility of the counter-appellant No. 2 insurance company to deposit the crop compensation amount in the KCC account of respondent No. 1/complainant registered on the crop insurance portal, which was not done by it. The statement of respondent No. 2 insurance company is not correct that since the concerned Patwari Halka was erroneously written as Patwari Halka No. 57 Rakshi on the portal in question by the appellant bank, hence the insurance company is not responsible for the payment of compensation amount. When all other entries regarding respondent No. 1/complainant were made correctly on the crop insurance portal, then on the ere ground that Patwari Halka No. 57 Raksi was written in place of Patwari Halka No. 57 Masod, respondent No. 2 insurance company cannot be absolved of the responsibility of paying the crop compensation amount. Under the scheme in question, respondent No. 2 insurance company is the implementing agency. In such a situation, if the name of Patwari Halka No. 57 Raksi was erroneously entered on the crop insurance portal, then the respondent No. 2, the insurance company, should have coordinated with the appellant bank and got the said error rectified, which was not done by it.

                          xxxx

                          8. According to the argument of learned counsel for Respondent No. 1/complainant, his 1.990 - hectare agricultural land is situated in village Masod, Patwari Halka No. 57 Masod, Tehsil Bhainsdehi, District Betul. He had opened his KCC account No. 194000429225 in the appellant bank as a loanee farmer. From the said KCC account, the insurance premium amount of Rs. 997.50/- for the Rabi wheat crop of the year 2017-18 was deducted on 15/01/2018 through respondent No. 3 committee and sent to respondent-respondent No. 2 insurance company. No. 1/ Despite the destruction of the above crop of the complainant, he did not get the crop insurance compensation amount of Rs. 41,790/- under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, whereas other farmers of the village were paid crop insurance compensation amount at the rate of Rs. 21,000/- per hectare. In the above context, the order passed by the District Commission is liable to be upheld as it is legal.

                          9. According to the argument of learned counsel for respondent No. 2, the insurance company, the agricultural land of respondent No. 1/complainant was erroneously shown to be situated in Patwari Halka No. 57, Raksi by the appellant bank on the crop insurance portal, whereas in reality the said land is situated in Patwari Halka No. 57, Masod. As per Exhibit R-2, no damage was found in the Rabi wheat crop of the year 2017-18 in Patwari Halka No. 57 Raksi. In such a situation, respondent No. 2 insurance company is not responsible for paying any compensation amount. In Patwari Halka No. 57 Masod, 50 percent crop damage was found, for which the appellant bank is responsible for paying the compensation amount. In the above context, the order passed by the District Commission is legal and deserves to be upheld.

                          xxxx

                          14. It is clear in the case that respondent No. 1/complainant is a debtor farmer, from whose KCC account No. 194000429225 the insurance premium amount of Rs.997.50/- was deducted on 15/01/2018 as per Exhibit C-1 and sent to respondent No. 2 insurance company. No objection has been raised by respondent No. 2 insurance company regarding non-receipt of insurance premium amount. It is also clear in the case that as per Exhibit C- 6 in the Patwari Halka No. 57 Masod of the agricultural land of respondent No. 1/complainant, there is 50 per cent shortage in the Rabi wheat crop of the year 2017-18. It is also proved from the copy of the relevant portal entries submitted by respondent No. 2, the insurance company, as Exhibit-4, that the agricultural land of respondent No. 1/complainant was erroneously shown in Patwari Halka No. 57 Raksi instead of Patwari Halka No. 57 Masod by the appellant bank and since no deficiency was found in the Rabi wheat crop of the year 2017-18 in the said Patwari Halka No. 57 Raksi as per Exhibit-102, hence no compensation amount was paid by respondent No. 2, the insurance company.

                          15. In the above context, it would be appropriate to mention the main provisions of the Prime Minister Crop Insurance Scheme. In clause-1 (page-1) of the said scheme, it has been clarified that- Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana aims at supporting sustainable production in agriculture sector by way of providing financial support to farmers suffering crop loss/damage arising out of unforeseen events. It has been clarified in para-2 (page-1) that - all farmers availing seasonal agricultural operational loans from financial institutions for the notified crop(s) would be covered compulsorily.

                          15(1) So far as the responsibility of the banks under the said Scheme is concerned, Clause XVII (2) (page-31) of the Scheme makes it clear that in case of any substantial misreporting by nodal bank/branch in case of compulsory farmers coverage, the concerned bank only shal be liable for such mis- reporting. Para XXIV (4) (e) (page 51) of the scheme also mentions that - Banks should ensure that all the eligible crop loans/seasonal operational loans taken for notified crop(s) are fully insured and the conditions stated in the declarations submitted have been complied with. No farmer should be deprived from insurance cover. In case, claims have arisen during crop season then respective bank and its branches would be responsible to make payment of the admissible claims to loanee farmers who were deprived from insurance cover to their crops. According to para )O(IV(4)(m)(f) (page-53) - Under administrative mechanism, banks are designated as terminal service points for farmers. Hence, it is their duty to ensure compulsory coverage of all eligible loanee farmers and all interested non-loanee farmers. In case of any misreporting by nodal bank/branch/PACS in case of farmers coverage, concerned bank only will be liable for such misreporting and its consequences.

                          16. Clear instructions were given in the letter dated 12/07/2017 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare to the banks that -It has been made mandatory for the banks to enter all coverage details on portal from Kharif 2017 onward and no other format of computing farmers details shall be used. Successful entries made on the portal should only be considered as valid crop insurance.

                          xxxx

                          18. In the light of the above discussion and judicial precedents, after full discussion of the facts and evidence presented in the case, the District Commission has passed a detailed order, which is a speaking order. The appellant bank has not been able to prove that there is any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the District Commission, accordingly the appeal No.112/2024 in question is dismissed as not maintainable and the order dated 30/10/2023 passed by the District Commission is upheld. In the said context, Appeal No.-116/2024-No. 117/2024, No. 118/2024, No. 121/2024, No. 122/2024 and No.119/2024, No. 120/2024, No. 123/2024 are also cancelled.

10. The operational guidelines contain specific roles and responsibilities and duties of various stake holders, in particular the Bank and the insurance company, and both play a major role for the implementation of the scheme and achieving its objective. Primarily it is the duty of the bank to furnish correct and complete details of the insured farmers, especially in cases where the farmers are loanee farmers, to the insurance company. The guidelines clearly state that bank will be responsible for furnishing any wrong details to the insurance company. State Commission has passed a well reasoned order after considering the contentions of the parties. We see no reason to interfere with its findings. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission, hence order of the State Commission is upheld and SA No. 606 of 2025 is dismissed.

11. Other SAs covered under this order are also disposed off in terms of order in SA No. 606 of 2025 and consequently all the 9 SAs covered under this order are dismissed.

12. As regards reference made by the appellant to the order dated 08.08.2025 in SA No. 283 of 2025 and connected case is concerned, wherein 14 SAs were remanded back to the State Commission, the facts of the said cases are different. In particular, it is to be noted that in those cases, State Commission has passed a common order covering 15 Appeals and SAs have been filed only in 14 cases and no second appeal was filed in 15th case till the date of the order i.e. 08.08.2025 before us. Those cases were remanded back to the State Commission for determining fresh respective liability of the Bank / insurance company without affecting the eligibility of the farmers with respect to the insured amount. However, in the present case, Bank alone is liable on account of misreporting of the data relating to the insured farmers.

13. Pending lAs, if any, also stand disposed off.