(ORAL) O R D E R -179- Despite a number of opportunities, defects pointed out by the office have not been removed by the Petitioner, viz. Punjab National Bank. Even the English translation of the orders, impugned in these Revision Petitions, have not been filed. However, since we are not inclined to entertain these 355 Petitions because of the quantum of the amount involved in each of the cases, which would be less than 50,000/- and even on merits, there is not much substance in the stand of the Petitioner, to avoid further wastage of money, at least on stationery, we exempt the Petitioner from curing the office objections. REVISION PETITIONS These three batches of 355 Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the), by the Punjab National Bank (for short the Bank), Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaints, filed by the Farmers, are directed against the common order dated 24.1.2017, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Bikaner (for short the State Commission), in Appeal Numbers noted above. By the said order, the State Commission has upheld several orders passed on various dates by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Churu, Rajasthan (for short the District Forum) in Consumer Complaints, as noted above. By the said orders, while accepting the Complaints filed by over 350 farmers, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in not remitting the full amount of premium to the Agriculture Insurance Company Ltd., Opposite Party No.2 (for short the Insurance Company), under the Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojna for the Rabi season 2009-10, resulting in the farmers getting lesser amount of compensation under the said Scheme from the Insurance Company, the District Forum had directed the Bank to re-compute the actual premium payable in respect of each of the Complainants/farmers and in the event of shortfall in the premium, make good the deficiency in the amount of compensation payable to them under the said Scheme, in terms of the Circular dated 26.11.2009, issued by Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd. to all the financial institutions in the State of Rajasthan and Branch Managers of the Nodal Banks, like the Petitioner. Affirming the finding returned by the District Forum to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in not remitting to the Insurance Company the correct amount of the premium, it was obliged to make good the deficiency in the compensation under the said Crop Insurance Scheme, the State Commission has placed reliance on the letter, stated to have been written by the Bank to the Insurance Company, which reads as follows :

This is to inform that one of our Branch Buchawas village is functioning in Churu district under block Taranagar. As per our extant guidelines in respect of submission of insurance claim & payment of premium for the Rabi crop 2009-10, was paid by our office vide letters dated 18.1.2010, 23.02.2010 & 13.3.2010. While claiming insurance we have paid premium as per your circular letter dated 26.11.2009 after taking into account Table shown on Page 8 of the Annexure which states payment of 59/- as premium and amount to be considered 2970/- per Hequtare. We have received the claim from your office vide your letter dated

02.11.2010 and credited to respective loan A/c holders. We have now been informed by Residents of Buchawas village that other banks viz. SBBJ, BOB and Gramin Bank operating under the same block have received more amount received by beneficiaries of our Banks Branch that i.e. Buchawas. The above issue resulted in protest from villagers and required churu District. Administrations intervention in the matter. Accordingly, additional District collector convened joint meeting of local bankers alongwithe Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Buchawas on 28.12.2010. The said meeting was also attended by representative of your company who opined that scale of finance is the criteria considering Insurance Premium. Accordingly, in the said meeting Additional District Collector directed our bank to represent the case to your company for considering the additional claim so that Benefit can be passed on to those farmers who have received less claim . (copy of minutes enclosed). We, therefore, request to entertain our additional fresh claim as a special case and on giving your consent we shall remit additional premium within in a weeks time after collecting from respective borrowers . We have calculated liked additional premium and its insurance cover which we are enclosing for advance information to you. We once again request and recommend for your favourable consideration in the larger interest of farmers of Buchawas area (Emphasis added) .

We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner at some length and perused the documents on record and translated copies thereof, including Circular dated 26.11.2009, which have now been placed before us. Learned Counsel has questioned the legality of the afore-noted directions mainly on two grounds : (i) since the Farmers do not fall within ambit of a consumer, as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, the Fora below exceeded their jurisdiction in entertaining the Complaints and (ii) the Circular dated 26.11.2009 has not been applied in its correct perspective, in as much as the Circular provides that declaration of a farmer for the purpose of compensation under the Scheme shall be considered only when full amount of premium was received by the Insurance Company and therefore, if , according to the Insurance Company, full premium, as payable, was not remitted by the Bank, they ought to have rejected the claim under the Scheme in entirety, instead of paying part of the compensation. Having bestowed our consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with him on either of the points, strenuously stressed by him. In so far as the question of jurisdiction of Consumer Fora in entertaining Complaint by a Farmer for indemnification of losses suffered by him on account of defective seeds or vagaries of nature, like floods or famine, as in the present case, is concerned, the issue is no longer . Rejecting a similar objection sought to be raised on behalf of a res integra seed manufacturing company, in M/s National Seeds Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. (2012) 2 SCC 506 , [LQ/SC/2012/64] the Honble Supreme Court had M.Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. gone to the extent of observing that any attempt to exclude the farmers from the ambit of the, by implication will make the vulnerable to attack of unconstitutionality on the ground of discrimination and there I no reason why the provisions of the should be so interpreted. We have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the Complaints, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in not computing correctly the premium payable under the Scheme, were maintainable under the. We also do not find any jurisdictional error in the concurrent finding returned by both the Fora below that being a nodal Bank, the Bank was amiss in computing the correct amount of the premium which the Bank was required to remit on behalf of each of the Complainants and debit the same against their loan accounts and thus, there was deficiency on its part on that score. A farmer cannot be deprived of the full amount of compensation he is entitled to under the Crop Insurance Scheme, for the loss suffered by him on account of famine, because of the abject lapse on the part of the Bank. Having come to the said conclusion, the shortfall in the compensation under the Crop Insurance Scheme has to be made good by the Bank, as stipulated in the Circular dated

28.11.2009. The relevant portions of the Circular reads as follows :

It has been clarified under point-number 5 of the provisions of Operational Modalities (special conditions for FIs/Nodal Banks/Loan disbursing points) of the NAIS Plan in case a farmer is deprived of any benefit under the scheme due to error/omission/commissions of the nodal bank/branch/PACS, the concerned institutions only shall make good all such losses. Therefore, make sure that you send the declaration and premiums within the fixed dates for all the eligible farmers under your financial institution.

In so far as the plea that because of deficient premium the Insurance Company ought to have rejected the claim in is concerned, apart from the fact that no such plea was toto, raised by the Bank in its Written Version, filed in opposition to the Complaints, it has no bearing in so far as the question of the claim of the Complainants for full compensation under the said Scheme was concerned. The source of adequate compensation under the Crop Insurance Scheme, under which the claim was maintainable, is immaterial for them. For the afore-going reasons and bearing in mind the fact that the additional compensation under the Scheme, payable to each of the farmers, would be less than 50,000/-, we do not find these cases to be fit for exercise of our limited Revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, all the Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed accordingly. After we have dictated the order, learned Counsel appearing for the Bank prays that it may be clarified that in the event of the Bank deciding to recover the amount it is liable to pay in terms of the impugned orders, from the Insurance Company, the dismissal of these Revision Petitions may not come in the way of the Bank in resorting to a legal recourse, which may be available to it. Since neither in the orders by the Fora below nor in this order, any finding on the arrangement between the Bank and the Insurance inter se Company, save and except on the applicability of Circular dated 26.11.2009, has been recorded, we refrain from commenting on the submission. ......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER