Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member

The Second Appeal No. 861 of 2020 has been filed against the order dated 28.07.2025 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh whereby the First appeal filed by the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. (Insurance Company) was dismissed, the Appeal being not maintainable.

2. The Second Appeal No. 863 of 2020 has been filed against the order dated 24.06.2025 of the State Commission Rajasthan whereby the First appeal filed by the State Bank of India was partly allowed making the Appellant Bank and Respondent no.2 ( Insurance Company) jointly liable to pay Rs.61,010/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint within a period of 45 days with liability of 75% to be paid by the Insurance Company and 25% by the Bank. Further, they were also directly to pay jointly a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5000/- for legal expenses, in the same proportion, failing which complainant is entitled to receive interest 9% p.a.

3. The Second Appeal No. 864 of 2025 has been filed against the order dated 21.04.2025 of the State Commission Rajasthan whereby the First appeal filed by the Insurance Company was dismissed.

4. 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, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer's Welfare, Agriculture National Insurance Company was selected as insurer( Implementing Agency) under the PMFBY. Complainants before the District Forum(s) were various farmers, having agricultural land of various extents who participated in the PMFBY of Central Government, as notified by Government of Rajasthan for insurance of their crops. There are three categories of farmers ( a) loanee farmers ( b) non-loanee farmers and ( c) share cropper farmers.

Brief Facts of SA No. 861 of 2025

5. The complainant took agricultural loan from Bank of India for insurance of soyabean crop for Kharif season 2018 and Bank under the PMFBY deposited insurance amount of Rs.800/- from his account and thus he was entitled to receive the insurance claim amount under PMFBY. The crop of the complainant got destroyed due to natural calamity as a result of which production became minimal. As no compensation amount was received by the complainant, the complainant filed CC before the District Forum Khandwa and District Forum Khandwa vide order dated 18.08.2020 held both the OP(s) - Bank of India and Agriculture Insurance Company of India jointly or separately liable. Being aggrieved the Insurance Company filed an appeal before the State Commission Madhya Pradesh and State Commission Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 28.07.2025 dismissed the Appeal of the Insurance Company.

Brief Facts of SA No. 863 of 2025

6. The complainant got his crops insured with Insurance Company. The complainant under PMFBY got the details of insured crop for Kharif 2019 uploaded by the State Bank of India on the National Crop Insurance Portal (NCIP) and claim was sent by OP No.2. At the time of awarding compensation, the complainant was supposed to receive Rs.61,010/- but this was refused by the Insurance Company on the ground of error in the entry related to the complainant's village name on the portal. The complainant made multiple attempts to rectify the said error to get the claim of his insurance but in vain. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed CC before the District Forum Bikaner and District Forum Bikaner vide order dated 23.05.2022 held only State Bank of India (OP No.1) liable for compensation alongwith physical, mental agony and litigation cost. However, no liability was fixed on OP No.2 -Insurance Company. Being aggrieved of the said order of the District Forum, the State Bank of India filed an appeal before the State Commission Rajasthan and State Commission Rajasthan vide order dated 24.06.2025 partly allowed the appeal making both the OP(s) before the District Forum i.e. SBI and Insurance Company liable for the compensation making SBI 25% liable and Insurance Company 75% liable.

Brief Facts of SA No. 864 of 2025

7. The complainant through Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank got his crop inured with the Insurance Company for which the Bank deducted an amount of Rs.5660/- During the kharif season of 2019, the entire crop of revenue village Shekshar was destroyed in which complainant suffered heavy losses. However, the complainant was not paid compensation though compensation was paid to other insured farmers. When he contacted the Insurance Company, he was informed that agricultural land was wrongly recorded as being situated in village Bibasar instead of village Shekshar. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed CC before the District Forum Jhunjhunu and District Forum Jhunjhunu vide order dated 25.10.2023 held OP No.2 only - Insurance Company liable for the compensation amount alongwith mental agony and litigation cost. However, no order was passed against OP No.1- Bank. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company filed an appeal before the State Commission Rajasthan and State Commission Rajasthan vide order dated 02.04.202 dismissed the appeal of the Insurance Company.

8 In SA No. 861 of 2025, the counsel for the Appellant argued that Under PMFBY, insurance coverage arises only upon a valid portal entry. In the present case the portal was opened and reopened on multiple occasions by the Government, repeated extensions were granted to Banks to rectify omissions, however despite such extensions, the concerned Bank failed to upload the farmer's details. Counsel also argued that the Appellant could initiate the refund of the excess collection in December 2019 only as the portal was finally closed in September 2019, as no further modifications were permitted thereafter and no reconciliation of records was possible before closing of the portal. In the absence of a portal entry, there was no occasion for the Appellant to verify process, or settle any claim. The Appellant receives only consolidated farmers' premium , and farmer wise insurance details are received strictly through NCIP with no scope of modification by the Appellant. It is an admitted and undisputed fact that no NCIP entry of the complainant farmer existed and the said fact is recorded in the district Commission's order as an admission by the Bank. Any excess premium collection, attributable to farmers whose details were not uploaded by the Bank or whose applications were rejected, was refunded to the Bank, as occurred in this case with the refund of INR 16,96,716/- on 13.12.2019. The Respondent No.2, being a loanee farmer, was compulsorily covered under PMFBY, and the entire process of premium deduction, and uploading insurance details on the NCIP rested exclusively with the lending bank. It is also argued that Clause X Sub-clause 5, and Clause XXIV Sub-clause 4(f), of the PMFBY operational guidelines unequivocally state that only data uploaded on the NCIP is valid, for insurance; Banks shall be responsible for incorrect, partial or non-uploading of farmer details; Banks shall be liable for payment of claims arising from their errors or omissions, Banks will be responsible for verification of requisite documents, eligible sum insured, premium rate, etc. Once the data of the framer is uploaded, the concerned insurance companies approve or reject the applications uploaded on the NCIP. It is also argued that the National Commission in the matter of Agriculture Insurance Co. v. Kailash & Ors. (RP/1303/2024) categorically held that Banks are solely responsible in case of no entry on the portal and that insurance companies cannot be held liable for the consequences of such omission. Appellant has acted in good faith and in strict compliance with all the instructions, circulars, and guidelines issued by the competent authorities. There is no allegation or evidence of any dereliction of duty or malafide on the part of the Appellant. Coverage under PMFBY is created solely on the basis of NCIP entries made by the Bank. Under the NCIP mechanism of PMFBY, the Insurance Company comes to know about the very existence of a loanee farmer and all his insurance particulars only and exclusively from the data uploaded by the concerned Bank on the National Crop Insurance Portal. When no such data was uploaded in the instant case, the Revisionist had absolutely no knowledge of the farmer's existence, and had no occasion to render any service to him.

9. In SA No. 863/2025, counsel for the appellant argued that Bank admittedly entered wrong insurance details of the village of the farmer on the National Crop Insurance Portal (NCIP)) resulting in the farmer's crop insurance being effected for an incorrect insurance unit, i.e., a wrong Patwar Circle (in simple terms, the crops were insured for a different piece of land than the one actually cultivated) depriving him the insurance amount for 2 crops as the farmer was insured for the wrong insurance unit. Under the governing framework of the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana ("PMFBY"), liability in cases of uploading wrong details of the crop of the village of the farmer rests exclusively with the Bank. There was an error of uploading the wrong land details of Respondent No.2 that is the entry of village Bhanipura -PH Kaalua, Patwari Halka-Kaalu instead of the correct village Chhatasar-PH Gabadesar, Patwari Halka-Garabdesar, and consequently, the concerned farmer was deprived of the claim amount that he would have otherwise been eligible for, as the village entered had no shortfall in yield, as per the data provided by the State Government, in the concerned kharif season. It is also argued Bank has categorically admitted before the District Commission that the land details of the farmer was wrongly entered on the portal. As per the Scheme provisions, the Appellant, processed claims strictly on the basis of the insurance unit details provided by the bank as reflected on the NCIP and state Govt, supplied yield data, the village & Patwar entered had no short fall. Since the Bank has uploaded a wrong Village Name i.e. Bhanipura-PH-Kaalua as the insurance unit, the Appellant was statutorily bound to assess claims strictly on the basis of the said village yield data supplied by the State Government. The appellant was bound to process the claim only on the basis of details of farmer entered on NCI Portal. Counsel also argued State Commission failed to appreciate that the Appellant had no independent mechanism or authority to verify or alter the data uploaded by the Bank on the NCI portal, and that the insurance payout was made strictly in accordance with the insurance details uploaded by the Bank on the NCIP. Had the Bank uploaded the correct land details, namely Chhatasar-PH Gabadesar village, the yield data pertaining to Chhatasar-PH Gabadesar village would have uniformly governed all the insured crops. Clause 17.4.6 of the Revised Operational Guidelines mandates that for loanee farmers, banks alone upload farmer details on NCIP. Clause 17.2 mandates that no platform other than NCIP shall be used for uploading farmer's details thereby underscoring that insurance coverage are to be undertaken strictly on the basis of data available on the NCIP. Clause 35.5.2.13 categorically provides that where a farmer is deprived of benefits due to bank error, the bank alone shall make good the loss. The Rajasthan State Notification dated 17.07.2019 further reinforces this position: Clause 8(iv) fastens entire liability on the bank for wrong entries qua crop or area. Clause 23 mandates that insurance coverage shall be strictly as per portal data. Learned counsel for the Appellant relied on following judgments of this Commission:

                   a. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited v. Branch Manager, Bank of India (RP/1225/2024)

                   b. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited v. Kailash and Anr. RP/1303/2024)

                   c. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited v. Gangaram Ahirwar & Anr. (RP/790/2023)

10. Counsel for the Appellant in 864/2025 argued that it is an admitted and undisputed fact that Respondent No.1 (Bank) uploaded incorrect land land/ insurance unit details of Respondent No.2 on the NCIP, as a result of which the farmer's crop was insured for Patwar Circle Bibasar instead of his actual village & Patwar Halka Shekhsar, Tehsil Jhunjhunu. Under PMFBY, claim determination is area-based and insuranceunit specific. Indemnity is payable only if the Actual Yield (AY) of the insured unit falls below the Threshold Yield (TY). The insurer has no discretion to apply yield data of any other unit. Since the Bank uploaded Bibasar as the insurance unit, the Appellant was statutorily bound to assess claims strictly on the basis of Bibasar yield data supplied by the State Government. It is also argued that The farmer's grievance is not based on Bibasar, the village & patwar, with respect to which the farmer's crops were insured as per the NCIP entry, but on the yield shortfall of his actual village Patwar Halka Shekhsar. The State Commission's core reasoning is that since compensation was paid for Chaula, it ought to have been paid for Bajra and Guar as well and Appellant is estopped from claiming that no claim is payable for the loss in the farmer's bajra and guar crops. The Chaula claim was paid solely because Chaula suffered a yield shortfall in Bibasar, the incorrect insurance unit entered by the Bank, and consequently reflected on the NCIP. This payment does not acknowledge or validate the farmer's entitlement based on Shekhsar village. It is also argued that Had the Bank uploaded the correct insurance unit Shekhsar, the yield data of Shekhsar would have governed all three crops. Clause 17.4.6 of the Revised Operational Guidelines mandates that for loanee farmers, banks alone upload farmer details on NCIP. Clause 17.2 mandates that no platform other than NCIP shall be used for uploading farmer's details thereby underscoring that insurance coverage are to be undertaken strictly on the basis of data available on the NCIP. Clause 35.5.2.13 categorically provides that where a farmer is deprived of benefits due to bank error, the bank alone shall make good the loss. The Rajasthan State Notification dated 17.07.2019 further reinforces this position: Clause 8(iv) fastens entire liability on the bank for wrong entries qua crop or area, Clause 23 mandates that insurance coverage shall be strictly as per portal data. Learned counsel for the Appellant relied on following judgments of this Commission:

                   a. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited v. Branch Manager, Bank of India (RP/1225/2024)

                   b. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited v. Kailash and Anr. (RP/1303/2024)

                   c. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited v. Gangaram Ahirwar & Anr. (RP/790/2023)

11. The Appellant in SA No. 861 of 2025 has listed the following substantial questions of law:

                   a. Whether the State Commission erred in law by upholding the order dated 09.12.2022 on the ground that it had attained finality, without considering that the Appellant had independently filed FA No. 1087/2022 challenging the same?

                   b. Whether the State Commission erred in law in imposing liability upon the Appellant despite Clause X (15), Clause XII (1)(a)(iv), Clause XVI (6) and Clause XXIV (5)(f) of the Operational Guidelines of PMFBY expressly casting the duty to upload and verify farmers' details exclusively upon the lending bank?

                   c. Whether the State Commission failed to appreciate Clause XXIV (4) (m) and Clause XVII (2) of the PMFBY Guidelines, which mandates that any misreporting by a bank regarding compulsory coverage of loanee farmers makes only the bank liable?

                   d. Whether the Bank and the Appellant can be held jointly or separately liable to pay the compensation amount to the Farmer in absence of any privity of contract between the Appellant and the Farmer?

                   e. Whether the State Commission erred in failing to distinguish between the roles of "implementing agency" and "lending institution" under the PMFBY, despite clear statutory demarcation of duties between the Insurance Company and the Bank?

                   f. Whether the State Commission acted without jurisdiction in disregarding the binding Notification dated 01.07.2016 and 05.07.2016 issued by the State Government and Government of India, which explicitly fixes responsibility for non-uploading of data solely upon the concerned bank/financial institution?

                   g. Whether the State Commission erred in law in holding the Appellant liable when there is no consumer-service provider relationship or privity of contract between the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 (loanee farmer)?

                   h. Whether the State Commission's order violates the principles of reasonableness and natural justice by attributing liability to the Appellant contrary to the express provisions of the PMFBY Guidelines?

12. The Appellant in SA No. 863 of 2025 has listed the following substantial questions of law:

                   a. Whether the State Commission erred in law in imposing liability upon the Appellant despite Clauses 17.4.6, 17.5.4, 35.5.2.13 and 35.5.3.13 of the Revised Operational Guidelines of PMFBY expressly casting the duty to upload and verify farmers' details exclusively upon the lending bank?

                   b. Whether the State Commission acted without jurisdiction in disregarding the binding Notification dated 17.07.2019 issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Farmers (Group 1) Department, which explicitly fixes responsibility for wrong entries and non-uploading of data solely upon the concerned bank/financial institution?

                   c. Whether the State Commission erred in law by holding that the Appellant "cannot take cover" of PMFBY Guidelines and Government Notifications, thereby effectively questioning the validity of a public policy, which is beyond the scope of a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act?

                   d. Whether the State Commission erred in law in holding the Appellant liable and finding that the bank's error was made in 'good faith' and that the bank is not solely liable constitutes a perverse appreciation of evidence, given the bank's admission of error.

                   e. Whether the State Commission's apportionment of liability between the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 in the ratio of 75:25 without assigning any reasons or citing any provision of PMFBY, Notification or Government Orders is arbitrary, unreasoned and contrary to settled law that quasi-judicial orders must be supported by reasons?

                   f. Whether the State Commission's order violates the principles of reasonableness and natural justice by attributing liability to the Appellant contrary to the express provisions of the PMFBY Guidelines and the Government Notification dated 17.07.2019?

13. The Appellant in SA No. 864 of 2025 has listed the following substantial questions of law. However, substantial questions of law listed at SI No. (a) and ( b) of SA No. 864 of 2025 are the same which have been stated in SA No. 863 of 2025, hence not reproduced here.

                   (a) . Whether the State Commission erred in law in holding the Appellant liable and finding that the bank did not commit an error and it was a system error and that the bank is not solely liable constitutes a perverse appreciation of evidence, given the bank's admission of error.

                   (b) . Whether the State Commission's order violates the principles of reasonableness and natural justice by attributing liability to the Appellant contrary to the express provisions of the PMFBY Guidelines and the Government Notification dated 17.07.2019?

                   (c) . Whether the State Commission and District Commission erred in affixing the liability of compensation upon the Appellant without there being any finding of deficiency in service on part of the Appellant.

                   d. Whether the State Commission erred in law by imposing liability on the Appellant based solely on the unsubstantiated statement of Respondent No.1 alleging a 'system error,' without evidence, especially when this averment amounts to an admission of the Bank's mistake under Clause 35.5.2.7 of the PMFBY Revised Operational Guidelines, which holds banks solely liable for losses due to their data upload errors?

14. These cases were heard on 08.01.2026. As the 3 SA(s) involve similar issues and questions of law, these were taken up together, although SA No. 861 of 2024 challenges order of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh and SA No. 863 and 864 of 2025 challenges the order of the State Commission Rajasthan. Wherever necessary, necessary details and analysis of these cases have been given. For the sake of convenience, parties also will be referred to as they were arrayed before the District Commission.

15. On 08.01.2026, at the outset, counsel for the appellant had submitted that they are not challenging the eligibility of the farmers / complainants. What is being contested is the interse liability with the Bank. It is the case of the Insurance Company is that Bank gave no details of the famers I complainants in SA No. 861 of 2025 and gave wrong details in SA No. 863 and 864 of 2025, hence Bank alone should be held liable. However, both District Commission and State Commission erred in holding bank and insurance company jointly and severally liable. The relevant extract of the order dated 08.01.2026 which briefly captures facts of the case and issues involved is reproduced below:

                   4. In SA No. 861 of 2025, counsel for the appellant submits that premium was received by them on 31.08.2018 (lumpsum premium in multiple cases including the case in question) but there was no details / data / entry in the online portal with respect to the complainant (s) / farmer (s) in the present case. They submitted that as the portal remains open for certain specified period which they have detailed in the memorandum of appeal, they waited for bank to rectify the mistake / upload the details. Further, as no action was taken by the Bank, they refunded the premium sometime in December 2019. They admit that they made no correspondence with the bank in this regard from August 2018 till December 2019.

                   5. In SA No. 863 of 2025, they have drew our attention to data of the complainant / farmer (Mangilal) at page 745-748, which contains 4 entries pertaining to this farmer. In two entries name of the village is shown as Bhanipura while in other 2 entries, it is shown as Chhantasar. Counsel for the appellant contends that in al the 4 entries, name of the village is wrongly recorded and correct name of the village where the land of the farmer is Gargabdesar. However, they drew our attention to the complaint in the present case (para 12), complainant has contended that the Bank made wrong entry of the village name as Bhanipura instead of Chhantasar, which means as per the complainant, the land is in Chhantasar and not in Gargabdesar as contended by the Appellant herein. They have relied upon the order of the District Commission in this regard.

                   6. As regards SA No. 864 of 2015 is concerned, the appellant contends that correct name of village is Shekhsar while the bank reported it as Bibasar. They have not placed on record copy of the data submitted by the bank on the portal on the lines they have done in SA No. 863 of 2025. In this case also, they have relied on the order of the District Commission.

                   7. In both SA No. 863 and 864 of 2025, it is submitted that insurance risk was accepted but claim was rejected on account of wrong village name and hence, no premium was refunded in these two cases. It was further pointed out that in SA No. 863 of 2025 District Commission fixed liability only the bank, who appealed before the State Commission and State Commission made both Bank and Insurance Company liable jointly and severally liable, making insurance company liable to pay 75% and Bank to pay 25%.

16. We have carefully gone through the relevant orders of the State Commission, District Commission, other relevant records and contentions of the Appellant herein in the light of operational guidelines of the scheme i.e. PMFBY. Under this scheme, the most important stakeholders are farmers, bank and the insurance company. Insurance Company and Bank play a very vital role in implementing the said scheme in accordance with operational guidelines. Both have well defined roles and responsibilities and are expected to work in coordination with each other and not in isolation. No doubt, it is the duty of the bank to provide the requisite details alongwith premium remittance with respect to the loanee farmers proposed to be covered, but if there is any delay on the part of the bank to furnish such details or if any discrepancies are noticed with respect to such details, insurance company is expected to revert back to the bank and representatives of both insurance company and bank are expected to work together to ensure that correct details are uploaded on the portal and no eligible farmer is left out so that in the eventuality of any loss happening, the concerned eligible farmer gets the requisite insurance claim without much hassle. If in any case despite repeated efforts by the insurance company, bank does not furnish the required details or rectify the deficiencies I mistakes pointed out, it is the duty of the insurance company to return the premium back to the bank in a timely fashion. In SA No. 861 of 2025, insurance company admits that premium in question was received by them on 31.08.2018 while it was refunded by them sometime in December, 2019 i.e. after a gap of more than one year. In this case, case of the insurance company is that no details were furnished by the bank on the online portal, however, they admit that they made no correspondence with the bank in this regard from August 2018 till December 2019. Hence, we hold that both bank and insurance company are liable in this case. Hence, even if some of the observations of the State Commission may not be correct, we find no infirmity in the final conclusion of the State Commission holding both the bank and the insurance company liable. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the State Commission holding both bank and the insurance company liable jointly and severally. Hence, order of the State Commission in this regard is upheld and SA No. 861 of 2025 is dismissed.

17. In SA No. 863 and 864 of 2025, the main contention is that bank furnished wrong details of the farmers as there were no losses in the Patwar Halka I villages as per the details furnished by the bank, although, there were losses in the village I Patwar Halka where the land of the farmer was located. Hence, although the insurance risk was accepted, but claim was rejected on account of wrong village name, hence in these cases, no premium was refunded. In these cases also we have gone through the order of the State Commission, District Commission and other relevant records and contentions of the Appellant herein. As already pointed out, the scheme envisages well defined roles and responsibilities, both on the part of the insurance company and bank and both have to work in coordination with each other. The insurance company has not been able to establish such a coordinated approach with the Bank. State Commission in its order records that insurance company should have verified the facts of the complainant's village but no such verification was done and policy was issued. Therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation for the crop loss as per prescribed standards .

18. In SA No. 863 of 2025, State Commission observed that Bank was negligent that it did not inform the complainant if they were unable to enter the correct details on the portal. The Bank also did not inform the complainant about the error. Even the Insurance Company did not say anything till the time when money was to be returned. Even Insurance Company did not bother to verify the data provided on the portal. After carefully considering all the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that State Commission has passed a well-reasoned order and we do not see any reason to interfere with its findings. Hence, we uphold the order of the State Commission with respect to making both insurance company and bank liable jointly and severally, making insurance company liable to pay 75% and bank liable to pay 25%. Accordingly, SA No. 863 of 2025 is dismissed.

19. In SA No. 864 of 2026, District Commission in its order recorded that insurance premium amount for crop insurance was received by the Insurance Company through the Bank and on this basis the Petitioner is entitled to receive compensation under the crop insurance for the loss of crops grown in his agricultural land from the insurance company. The State Commission also recorded that before issuing the insurance policy, the Insurance Company should have verified the facts regarding the complainant's village but no such verification was done and the policy was issued. Further, when on the basis of facts recorded on the portal, the insurance claim for the loss in the paddy crop was accepted and paid, the payment for guar and bajra crops cannot be denied on the ground of wrong details being entered. There are concurrent findings of both the fora below as regards liability of insurance company is concerned and that Bank is not liable in the present case. After carefully considering all the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that State Commission has passed a well reasoned order and we do not see any reason to interfere with its findings. Hence, we uphold the order of the State Commission and SA No. 864 of 2025 is dismissed.

20. Accordingly, all the 3 SA(s) covered under this order stand dismissed.

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