1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Challenge in these orders is to the common order of the State Commission dated 16.04.2025 vide which 22 appeals were decided together.

2. Earlier, 16 SAs filed challenging the same order vide SA/72/2026 and connected cases were taken up by this Commission and, after extensive hearing and discussion, were dismissed vide _ this Commission's order dated 16.03.2025. The said order is reproduced below:

                          "1: Heard counsel for the appellants. These 16 Second Appeals have been filed challenging the common order dated 16.04.2025 of the State Commission vide which 22 First Appeals, 11 filed by the Agriculture Insurance Company (hereinafter insurance company) and 11 jointly filed by the Adim Jaati Krishi Saakh Samiti (hereinafter Samiti) and District Cooperative Central Bank (hereinafter Bank) were taken up together. Earlier the District Commission while allowing the complaints had fixed liability jointly on the Insurance Company, Bank and the Samiti. The State Commission, modifying the order of the District Commission, fixed liability only on the Samiti and on the Bank, and Insurance Company was relieved from the liability.

                          2. As these cases involve similar facts and common issues, these have been taken up together. These cases have been filed with delay. In SA/72/2026 the delay is 74 days. Although the reasons for delay are not found convincing, in the interest of justice the delay is condoned in all the cases and these are taken up on merits.

                          3. SA/72/2026 is taken up as a lead case. It was the case of the Insurance Company before the lower fora that the details of the complainant farmer as furnished by the Samiti/Bank on the scheme portal were wrong. The land of the farmer was in Patwari Halka Malegaon with Halka No. 67 while it was wrongly shown by the Samiti/Bank as Patwari Halka No. 45 Malegaon. There was no crop loss in Patwari Halka No. 45 but the loss happened in Patwari Halka No. 67, hence the Insurance Company rejected the claim.

                          4. At the outset counsel for the appellant submitted that they are not questioning the eligibility of the farmer for the claim as their crop is situated in Patwari Halka No. 67 Malegaon where the loss has happened and hence he is entitled to claim. What they are questioning is their inter se liability with the Insurance Company, arguing that only the Insurance Company is liable in the present case. It is the case of the appellants herein (Samiti/Bank) that in the format existing at that time there is no column indicating Patwari Halka No. hence they are not liable as they have not committed any mistake by wrongly indicating the Patwari Halka No. They have drawn our attention to the list at page 75 onwards. However this list does not even have a column of Patwari Halka name hence this list is perhaps not full reflection of the portal data entry. In the appeal memorandum the Appellant herein admits that the complainant farmer's land is situated in Patwari Halka No. 67 Malegaon and that the premium was deducted from the account of the complainant farmer and remitted to the Insurance Company. The Appellant herein has not been able to show us any evidence/document which will show that. the online portal seeking details of the insured farmer had no column with respect to Patwari Halka No. The document at page 75 onwards does not appear to correctly/fully reflect the online portal entries as this does not even contain the Patwari Halka name. Further, going by the version of the appellant herein that there was no column for indicating the Patwari Halka No., but only the.name they have not been able to clarify how the Halka No. came into the Insurance Company's record. As the Insurance Company has no wherewithal/access to Bank's records or any permission to change any data on the portal SA/175/2026 and connected which is done by the Samiti/Bank only. The State Commission in para 15 of its order has given categorical finding based on Exhibit D-4 document that the entries made on the crop insurance portal by the Bank in respect of the complainant KCC account in question showed his land wrongly situated in Patwari Halka No. 45 Malegaon instead of Patwari Halka No. 67 Malegaon. Hence the State Commission came to a conclusion that the Insurance Company cannot be held responsible and only Bank/Samiti are responsible for furnishing the wrong details of the farmers which deprived the farmer of the insurance claim.

                          5. After careful consideration of the orders of the State Commission and other relevant records we are in agreement with the observations and findings of the State Commission and hold that in the present case the appellant herein has furnished wrong information with respect to the land of the farmer/complainant which led to rejection of his legitimate claim. Hence in the present case the Insurance Company was justified in rejecting the insurance claim as there was no loss in Patwari Halka No. 45 Malegaon while loss occurred in Patwari Halka No. 67 Malegaon where the land of the farmer/complainant was situated. Hence in the present case Samiti and Bank have to be held jointly liable.

                          6. Earlier, two Second Appeals SA/119/2026 and SA/120/2026 were also filed challenging the same order dated 16.04.2025 of the State Commission and the same were dismissed vide this Commission order dated 02.03.2026.

                          7. Section 51 (2) envisages Second Appeal to this Commission if it involves substantial questions of law. Under Section 51 (3) such substantial questions of law have to be listed in the memorandum of appeal. In the present case following substantial questions of law have been listed in SA/72/2026 (similar questions have been listed in other cases):

                          A. Whether the Hon'ble State Commission erred in law in shifting 100% liability to pay compensation upon the Appellants, despite clear evidence in the form of the Migrate File indicating that the Appellants had uploaded the correct Patwari Halka Number of the insured farmer on the PMFBY portal?

                          B. Whether the Hon'ble State Commission failed to consider the legal position that the Appellants, being SA/175/2026 and connected merely a nodal agency under the PMFBY Scheme, cannot be held solely liable in the absence of privity of contract with the insured farmer?

                          C. Whether the doctrine of privity of contract under general contract law would bar any direction of exclusive liability against the Appellants, who are not the contracting party to the insurance contract under the PMFBY Scheme?

                          D. Whether the Hon'ble State Commission acted contrary to settled principles of burden of proof by holding the Appellants liable without any evidence produced by the Respondent No. 1 insurer to substantiate its allegations - of data misreporting?

                          E. Whether the Hon'ble State Commission erroneously applied the ruling in HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Darshan Singh & Ors. without appreciating the factual and contextual distinctions between the said case and the present matter?

                          8. What constitutes a substantial question of law and how it differs from a question of law has been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandrabhan ( deceased ) Through Legal Representatives and Others Vs. Saraswati and Others (2022) 20 SCC 199. In the present case the State Commission based on evidence before it came to a finding that it is the Samiti/Bank who furnished the wrong details and hence liability cannot be fixed on the Insurance Company. Hence we are of the considered view that the State Commission committed no_ illegality or material irregularity in modifying the order of the District Commission and fixing liability jointly and severally on Samiti and Bank only. The case involves no substantial question of law. Accordingly, order of the State Commission is upheld and SA/72/2026 is dismissed.

                          9. Other 15 Second Appeals covered under this order involve similar facts and the same substantial questions of law and hence are considered in the light of our decision in SA/72/2026. Hence these 15 Second Appeals also stand dismissed.

                          10. Accordingly, all the 16 SAs covered under this order stand dismissed.

                          11. Pending IA's, if any, stand disposed off.

                          12. Registry of NCDRC is directed to send a copy of this order (free certified copy) to both sides, in particular the Respondent, on the address given in the Memo of Parties, within a maximum period of one week from the date of this order."

3. As these three cases involve similar facts and the same ~ substantial question of law, these are also considered and disposed of in 'terms of our order dated 16.03.2025 in SA/72/2026 and connected cases. Accordingly, all the three SAs covered under this order are dismissed.

4. Pending IA's, if any, stand disposed off.

5. Registry of NCDRC is directed to send a copy of this order (free certified copy) to both sides, in particular the Respondent, on the address given in the Memo of Parties, within a maximum period of one week from the date of this order.