Chattisgarh High Court
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India … vs Branch Manager on 17 July, 2026
1
CGHC010208752026 2026:CGHC:30478
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 845 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address- Regional Office Lic Investment Building, Phase-2, Second Floor,
Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Alternate Address- Office Block- 1, Fifth Floor, Plate B
And C, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi, 110023
--- Petitioner
versus
1 - Branch Manager Punjab National Bank, Branch- Bhandarpur, Address-
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)- 491414
2 - Lakhan Mandavi S/o Bhavat Mandavi Aged About 60 Years R/o Village-
Jagannathpur/karela, Tehsil- Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-
491445
--- Respondents
WP227 No. 873 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address Regional Office L I C Investment Building Phase – 2, Second Floor,
Pandari, Raipur (C.G.) Alternate Address- Office Block -1 Fifth Floor, Plate
B And C, East Kidwai Nagar New Delhi 110023
— Petitioner
VED
PRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Versus
Digitally signed
by VED
PRAKASH 1 – Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Branch Bhandarpur, Address
DEWANGAN
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh District- K.C.G. (C.G.) – 491414
Date:
2026.07.21
19:41:01 +0530
2
2 – Dinesh Kumar Verma S/o Jaganath Verma Aged About 45 Years R/o
Karela, Post Dhara Tehsil Khairagarh, District- K.C.G. (C.G.) 491445
— Respondents
WP227 No. 876 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address Regional Office L I C Investment Building Phase – 2, Second Floor,
Pandari, Raipur (C.G.) Alternate Address- Office Block -1 Fifth Floor, Plate
B And C, East Kidwai Nagar New Delhi 110023
— Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Branch Bhandarpur, Address
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh District- K.C.G. (C.G.) – 491414
2 – Ramchand Janghel S/o Tarasram Janghel Aged About 65 Years R/o
Village Jagnnathpur/ Karela, Tehsil Khairagarh District- K.C.G. (C.G.)
491445
— Respondents
WP227 No. 878 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address Regional Office L I C Investment Building, Phase-2, Second Floor,
Pandri, Raipur Chhattisgarh Alternate Address – Office Block – 1, Fifth Floor,
Plate B And C, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi 110023
— Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Branch Bhandarpur, Address
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai
Chhattisgarh 491414
2 – Dujram Verma S/o Dhannalal Verma Aged About 56 Years R/o Village
Sirshahi, Tehsil Gataparkala, District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai
Chhattisgarh 491444
— Respondents
3
WP227 No. 879 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address- Regional Office L I C Investment Building , Phase-2, Second
Floor, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Alternate Address- Office Block-1, Fifth Floor.
Plate B And C, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi, 110023
— Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Panjab National Bank, Branch-Bhandarpur, Address-
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh, District- District- K.C.G. (C.G.) 491414
2 – Dileep Kumar Janghel S/o- Rajendra Janghel, Aged About 40 Years R/o-
Village Karela, Tehsil- Khairagarh, District- K C G (C.G.) 491445
— Respondents
WP227 No. 880 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address Regional Office L I C Investment Building, Phase-2, Second Floor,
Pandri, Raipur Chhattisgarh Alternate Address – Office Block – 1, Fifth Floor,
Plate B And C, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi 110023
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank Branch Bhandarpur, Address
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai
Chhattisgarh 491414
2 – Rukhmani Janghel D/o Ramchand Janghel Aged About 59 Years R/o
Village Jagannathpur/ Karela, Tehsil – Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-
Chhuikhadan-Gandai Chhattisgarh 491445
— Respondents
WP227 No. 885 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address Regional Office L I C Investment Building Phase – 2, Second Floor,
Pandari, Raipur (C.G.) Alternate Address- Office Block -1 Fifth Floor, Plate
B And C, East Kidwai Nagar New Delhi 110023
—Petitioner
4
Versus
1 – Branch Manager, Panjab National Bank Branch Bhandarpur, Address
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh District- K.C.G. (C.G.) – 491414
2 – Bhukhanlal Kosre S/o Garibdas Kosre Aged About 43 Years R/o Village
Jagnnathpur/ Karela, Tehsil Khairagarh District- K.C.G. (C.G.) 491445
— Respondents
WP227 No. 886 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address – Regional Office Lic Investment Building, Phase- 2, Second Floor,
Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Alternate Address – Office Block – 1, Fifth Floor, Plate
B And C, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi, 110023
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Branch Bhandarpur, Address
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh, District K C G (C.G.)- 491414
2 – Ghanaram Sahu, S/o Narottam Sahu, Aged About 56 Years R/o Village-
Parsahi, Tehsil- Khariagarh, District K C G (C.G.)-491881
— Respondents
WP227 No. 872 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address- Regional Office L I C Investment Building Phase -2 Second Floor
Pandri Raipur, (C.G.) Alternate Address- Office Block – 1 Fifth Floor Plate B
And C, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi, 110023
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Branch – Bhandarpur, Address-
Bhandarpur, Tehsil- Khairagarh District- Khairagarh – Chhuikhadan-Gandai
(C.G.) 491414
5
2 – Santuram Verma S/o Dasrathram Verma Aged About 41 Years R/o
Village- Karela Tehsil- Khairagarh District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai
(C.G.) 491445
— Respondents
WP227 No. 871 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address- Regional Office L I C Investment Building , Phase-2, Second
Floor, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Alternate Address- Office Block-1, Fifth Floor.
Plate B And C, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi, 110023
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Panjab National Bank, Branch-Bhandarpur, Address-
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh, District- District- K.C.G. (C.G.) 491414
2 – Jitendra Kumar Janghel, S/o- Krishna Kumar Janghel, Aged About 35
Years R/o- Village Jagannathpur/ Karela, Tehsil- Khairagarh, District- K.C.G.
(C.G.) 491445
— Respondents
WP227 No. 870 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Office L I C
Investment Building Phase -2, Second Floor, Pandri, Raipur C.G. Alternate
Address Office Block 1 Fifth Floor, Plate B And C East Kidwai Nagar New
Delhi 110023.
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Branch Bhandarpur Address
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh, District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai
C.G. 491414.
2 – Babulal Lahre S/o Anupdas Lahre Aged About 62 Years R/o Village
Daihan Tehsil Khairagarh District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai C.G.
— Respondents
6
WP227 No. 869 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address – Regional Office L I C Investment Building, Phase-2, Second
Floor, Pandri, Raipur Chhattisgarh Alternate Address – Office Block -1, Fifth
Floor, Plate B And C, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi 110023
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Punjab National Bank, Branch Bhandarpur, Address
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh, District K.C.G. Chahttisgarh 491414
2 – Parmanand Gond S/o Jaitram Gond Aged About 51 Years R/o Village
Baigatola, Tehsil – Khairagarh, District K.C.G. Chhattisgarh 491881
— Respondents
WP227 No. 868 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address- Regional Office L I C Investment Building , Phase-2, Second
Floor, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Alternate Address- Office Block-1, Fifth Floor.
Plate B And C, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi, 110023
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Panjab National Bank, Branch-
Bhandarpur, Address-Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh, District- District-
K.C.G. (C.G.) 491414
2 – Lekhuram Sahu, S/o- Jhumuklal Sahu, Aged About 48 Years R/o- Village
Parasbod/parshahi Karela, Tehsil- Khairagarh, District- K.C.G. (C.G.)
491888
— Respondents
WP227 No. 867 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Address- Regional Office L I C
Investment Building Phase 2, Second Floor Pandri Raipur C.G. Alternate
Address Office Block 1 Fifth Floor Plate B And C, East Kidwai Nagar, New
Delhi 110023.
—Petitioner
7
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Branch Bhandarpur Address
Bhandarpur Tehsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon C.G. 491414
2 – Gajadhar Verma S/o Shukhram Verma Aged About 56 Years R/o Village
Bhandrapur Tehsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon C.G. 491558.
— Respondents
WP227 No. 866 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address – Regional Office Lic Investment Building, Phase- 2, Second Floor,
Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Alternate Address – Office Block – 1, Fifth Floor, Plate
B And C, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi, 110023
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Punjab National Bank, Branch Bhandarpur, Address
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh, District K C G (C.G.)- 491414
2 – Kaluram, S/o Bheekhram, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village –
Jagannathpur / Karela, Tehsil – Khairagarh, District K C G (C.G.)- 491445
— Respondents
WP227 No. 865 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager
Address Regional Office L I C Investment Building Phase, 2, Second Floor
Pandri Raipur C.G. Alternate Address Office Block 1 Fifth Floor Plate B And
C, East Kidwai, Nagar New Delhi 110023.
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Address Bhandarpur Tehsil
Khandarpur District Rajnandgaon C.G. 491414.
2 – Lalit Kumar Verma S/o Jagnuram Verma Aged About 31 Years R/o
Village Jagannathpur Karela Tehsil Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon C.G.
491445.
— Respondents
8
WP227 No. 864 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address – Regional Office Lic Investment Building, Phase- 2, Second Floor,
Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Alternate Address – Office Block – 1, Fifth Floor, Plate
B And C, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi, 110023
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Punjab National Bank, Branch Bhandarpur, Address
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh, District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai
(C.G.)- 491414
2 – Janak Ram Verma, S/o Ramdyal Verma, Aged About 65 Years R/o
Village- Jagannathpur /karela, Tehsil – Khairagarh, District Khairagarh
Chhuikhadan Gandai (C.G.) -491445
— Respondents
WP227 No. 863 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager
Address Regional Office L I C. Investment Building Phase, 2, Second Floor,
Pandri, Raipur C.G. Alternate Address Office Block 1, Fifth Floor Palate B
And C, East Kidwai Nagar New Delhi, 110023.
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Branch Bhandarpur Address
Bhandarpur Tehsil Khairagarh, District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gaindai
C.G. 491414.
2 – Thansingh Verma S/o Govind Verma Aged About 46 Years R/o Village
Jagannathpur Karela Tehsil Khairagarh, District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan
Gandai C.G. 491445.
— Respondents
9
WP227 No. 862 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address Regional Office L I C Investment Building Phase – 2, Second Floor,
Pandari, Raipur (C.G.) Alternate Address- Office Block -1 Fifth Floor, Plate
B And C, East Kidwai Nagar New Delhi 110023
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Bhandarpur, Address
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Now (K. C. G.)
491414
2 – Doman Singh Verma S/o Jagnuram Verma Aged About 41 Years R/o
Village Jagannathpur/ Karela, Tehsil Khairagarh District- Rajnandgaon
(C.G.) Now K. C. G. -491445
— Respondents
WP227 No. 861 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Comapny Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address- Regional Office L I C Investment Building , Phase-2, Second
Floor, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Alternate Address- Office Block-1, Fifth Floor.
Plate B And C, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi, 110023
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Panjab National Bank, Branch-Bhandarpur, Address-
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh, District- K.C.G. (C.G.) 491414
2 – Mahendra Kumar Verma, S/o- Pardeshi Verma, Aged About 57 Years
R/o- Village Banboda, Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh, District- K.C.G.
(C.G.) 491558
— Respondents
10
WP227 No. 858 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address- Regional Office Lic Investment Building, Phase- 2, Second Floor,
Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Alternate Address- Office Block- 1, Fifth Floor, Plate B
And C, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi, 110023
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Branch Bhandarpur, Address
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Now (K.C.G.) (C.G.)-
491414
2 – Shukhnandan Koshre S/o Babulal Koshre Aged About 32 Years R/o
Village- Reevagahan/ Karela, Tehsil- Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Now
(K.C.G.) (C.G.)- 491441
— Respondents
WP227 No. 857 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address- Regional Office L.I.C. Investment Building, Phase- 2, Second
Floor, Pandri, Raipur, C.G. Alternate Address- Office Block-1, Fifth Floor,
Plate B And C, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi, 110023.
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Branch- Bhandarpur, Address-
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon Now (K.C.G.), C.G.-
491414.
2 – Ghanshyam Sahu S/o Ganeshram Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o
Village- Parsahi, Tehsil- Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon Now (K.C.G.),
C.G. – 491888
— Respondents
11
WP227 No. 856 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address – Regional Office Lic Investment Building, Phase- 2, Second Floor,
Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Alternate Address – Office Block – 1, Fifth Floor, Plate
B And C, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi, 110023
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Branch Bhandarpur, Address
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh, District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai
(C.G.)- 491414
2 – Rajkapoor Mochi, S/o Gendalal Mochi, Aged About 63 Years R/o Village
– Bhandarpur, Tehsil – Khairagarh, District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai
(C.G.) -491558
— Respondents
WP227 No. 855 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address Regional Office L I C Investment Building Phase – 2, Second Floor,
Pandari, Raipur (C.G.) Alternate Address- Office Block -1 Fifth Floor, Plate
B And C, East Kidwai Nagar New Delhi 110023
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Punjab National Bank , Branch Bhandarpur, Address
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh District- (K.C.G.) (C.G.) – 491414
2 – Harishchandra Verma S/o Mangalram Verma Aged About 37 Years R/o
Village Karela, Tehsil Khairagarh District- (K.C.G.) (C.G.) 491445
— Respondents
12
WP227 No. 854 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address- Regional Office Lic Investment Building, Phase- 2, Second Floor,
Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Alternate Address- Office Block- 1, Fifth Floor, Plate B
And C, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi, 110023
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Branch- Bhandarpur, Address-
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)- 491414
2 – Janki Bai Gond S/o Ramsukh Gond Aged About 66 Years R/o Village-
Jagannathpur/karela, Tehsil- Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-
491445
— Respondents
WP227 No. 853 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address Regional Office L I C Investment Building, Phase-2, Second Floor,
Pandri, Raipur Chhattisgarh Alternate Address – Office Block – 1, Fifth Floor,
Plate B And C, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi 110023
—Petitioner(
Versus
1 – Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank Branch Bhandarpur, Address
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai
Chhattisgarh 491414
2 – Prakash Gaund S/o Preetram Mandavi Aged About 48 Years R/o Village
Karela, Tehsil – Khairagarh, District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai
Chhattisgarh 491445
— Respondents
WP227 No. 852 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd Through Regional Manager,
Address- Regional Office L.I.C. Investment Building, Phase-2, Second
Floor, Pandri, Raipur, C.G. Alternate Address- Office Block-1, Fifth Floor,
Plate B And C, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi, 110023.
—Petitioner
13
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Branch- Bhandarpur, Address-
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhdan-Gandai,
C.G.- 491414.
2 – Dhansai Gaud S/o Dasru Aged About 71 Years R/o Village- Bhandarpur,
Tehsil Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhdan-Gandai, C.G.- 491558..
— Respondents
WP227 No. 851 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address Regional Office L I C Investment Building Phase – 2, Second Floor,
Pandari, Raipur (C.G.) Alternate Address- Office Block -1 Fifth Floor, Plate
B And C, East Kidwai Nagar New Delhi 110023
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Punjab National Bank, Branch Bhandarpur, Address
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh District- K.C.G. (C.G.) – 491414
2 – Tekeshwar Verma S/o Laksham Verma Aged About 33 Years R/o Village
Jagnnathpur/ Karela, Tehsil Khairagarh District- K.C.G. (C.G.) -491888
— Respondents
WP227 No. 850 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address- Regional Office L.I.C. Investment Building, Phase- 2, Second
Floor, Pandri, Raipur, C.G. Alternate Address- Office Block-1, Fifth Floor,
Plate B And C, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi, 110023.
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Branch- Bhandarpur, Address-
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh, District- K.C.G., C.G.- 491414.
2 – Chandresh Sinha S/o Ravikumar Sinha Aged About 33 Years R/o
Village- Karela, Tehsil- Khairagarh, District- K.C.G., C.G. – 491445.
— Respondents
14
WP227 No. 848 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address- Regional Office Lic Investment Building, Phase- 2, Second Floor,
Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Alternate Address- Office Block- 1, Fifth Floor, Plate B
And C, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi, 110023
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Punjab National Bank, Branch Bhandarpur, Address
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai
(C.G.)- 491414
2 – Siyaram Sahu S/o Dasaru Sahu Aged About 61 Years R/o Village-
Jagnnathpur/ Karela, Tehsil- Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-
Gandai (C.G.)- 491888
— Respondents
WP227 No. 847 of 2026
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Address -Regional Office L.I.C. Investment Building Phase – 2, Second
Floor, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Alternate Address -Office Block -1, Fifth Floor,
Plate B And C, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi, 110023
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Branch Manager Punjab National Bank, Branch Bhandrapur, Address
Bhandarpur, Tehsil Khairagarh District -K C G (C.G.) -491414
2 – Kubhlal Sinha, S/o Punuram Sinha, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village –
Bhandrapur, Tehsil -Khairagarh, District K C G (C.G.) -491558
— Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate
15
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
17/07/2026
1. As all these writ petitions arise from a common order passed by the
learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
Delhi, and involve common questions of fact and law, they were
heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For
the sake of convenience, Writ Petition (227) No. 845 of 2026 is
treated as the lead case, and the facts are being referred to
therefrom.
2. The complainant’s case before the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Rajnandgaon, was that they were eligible
loanee farmers under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana
(hereinafter referred to as “PMFBY”) for Kharif-2019 and owned
agricultural land of their respective Khasra Numbers. It was averred
in the complaint that the crop insurance premium was deducted by
Respondent No.1/Bank from their savings account and remitted to
Respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Due to deficient rainfall and
natural calamities during the crop season, their crop suffered
substantial damage. On the basis of the Report prepared by the
Deputy Director of Agriculture, District Rajnandgaon, the Insurance
Company paid crop insurance compensation to other similarly
situated farmers at the rate of Rs. 28,073/- per hectare, but no
compensation was paid to the respective complainants despite the
deduction of the premium from their accounts. It was further pleaded
in the complaint that, pursuant to a complaint submitted before the
16
Collector, an inquiry was conducted wherein it was found that
although the crop insurance premium had been deducted from the
complainant’s account and remitted to the Insurance Company, their
particulars had not been uploaded on the designated portal by the
respondent/Bank, resulting in denial of the insurance claim. On these
allegations, the complainant asserted that both the Bank and the
Insurance Company were guilty of deficiency in service and were
jointly and severally liable to compensate him. Accordingly, he
claimed crop insurance compensation, compensation towards
physical, mental and financial hardship, interest at the rate of 18%
per annum, litigation costs and other appropriate reliefs.
3. The Opposite Party No.1/Bank, in its written statement, submitted
that it functions strictly in accordance with the directions and
guidelines issued by the Central Government under the PMFBY. In
respect of complainants who availed Kisan Credit Card (KCC) loans,
the crop insurance premium from their accounts was duly deducted
from their accounts and remitted to Opposite Party No.2/Insurance
Company within the prescribed period. Despite receipt of the
premium, the Insurance Company neither accepted the details
uploaded on the portal nor made any effort to have the information
re-entered. It was further pleaded that the Insurance Company
retained the premium amount without returning the same to the Bank,
even though the names of the insured farmers were not registered on
the portal. The Bank asserted that it had repeatedly requested the
Insurance Company not to reject the premium, but such requests
were not acceded to. Thus, the complainants were deprived of crop
insurance solely due to the default of the Insurance Company, and
17
the Bank was not liable to pay any compensation. On these grounds,
dismissal of the complaint against Opposite Party No.1 was prayed
for.
4. The opposite Party No.2/Insurance Company, in its written statement,
submitted that under the PMFBY, the lending bank deducts the crop
insurance premium from the accounts of eligible farmers, remits the
consolidated premium to the Insurance Company, and is exclusively
responsible for uploading the particulars of individual farmers on the
National Crop Insurance Portal. For Kharif-2019, Village Karela,
Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, the threshold yield was
1,805 kg per hectare; the actual yield was 407.148 kg per hectare,
resulting in a yield loss of 1,397.852 kg per hectare, i.e., 77.44%,
thereby making insured farmers eligible for compensation. However,
the Bank failed to insure the complainant’s crop by not uploading
their particulars on the insurance portal. It was specifically pleaded
that the Insurance Company neither deducts the premium directly
from the farmer’s account nor uploads the farmer’s data on the portal,
those functions being exclusively within the domain of the Bank.
Since the complainant was never enrolled under the Scheme due to
the Bank’s omission, no insurance cover came into existence and,
consequently, the complainant was not entitled to receive any crop
insurance claim from the Insurance Company. Accordingly, dismissal
of the complaint against Opposite Party No.2 was sought.
5. Upon appreciation of the pleadings, affidavits and documentary
evidence adduced by the parties, the learned District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission held that the complainants had
18
established that the crop insurance premium had been duly deducted
from their respective bank accounts and remitted by Opposite Party
No.1/Bank. The Commission considered the PMFBY Guidelines,
Government notifications, bank records, e-mail correspondence and
other relevant documents and after referring to Clauses 17.11 and
17.12 of the PMFBY Operational Guidelines, the State Government
Notification dated 24.05.2017 and the decisions of the National
Consumer Commission in The Manager, Andhra Pragati Grameena
Bank v. Sigam Shiva Shankar Reddy and Others (Revision
Petition No. 2673 of 2013, decided on 30.10.2015) and the
Chhattisgarh State Consumer Commission in Chhattisgarh Rajya
Gramin Bank v. Smt. Radhiya Bai and Others (FA No. 678 of 2019,
decided on 10.01.2020), the District Commission decided that the
statutory obligation to upload the particulars of eligible farmers on the
National Crop Insurance Portal rests exclusively upon the concerned
Bank. It rejected the Bank’s defence that the omission occurred due
to Aadhaar mismatch or technical errors, observing that the Kisan
Credit Card accounts had themselves been opened on the basis of
the same Aadhaar particulars and, therefore, such explanation was
untenable. Holding that the complainants were deprived of crop
insurance benefits solely due to the negligence of the Bank in failing
to upload their particulars on the portal, the District Commission
exonerated the O.P. No. 2/Insurance Company from liability and
partly allowed the complaints by directing O.P. No.1/Bank to pay the
crop insurance compensation, compensation for mental agony,
interest from the date of filing of the complaints and litigation costs to
the respective complainants.
19
6. The O.P. No. 1/Bank challenged the order dated 22.01.2024 passed
by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Rajnandgaon, by their appeals before the Chhattisgarh State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur. The State
Commission, after hearing the parties, partly allowed the appeals
preferred by the O.P. No. 1/Bank and modified the order of the
District Commission. The State Commission held that it was
undisputed that the O.P. No. 1/Bank had deducted the crop insurance
premium from the complainant’s account and remitted the same to
the Insurance Company, but the complainant’s proposal could not be
processed due to non-entry of the requisite particulars on the PMFBY
portal. The Commission affirmed the finding that the O.P. No. 1/Bank
was negligent in failing to upload the correct particulars of the
complainant despite repeated extensions granted by the Central
Government for portal entry, thereby committing a deficiency in
service. However, the Commission further held that, in view of
Condition No. 27 of the State Government Notification dated
08.07.2019 and the communication of the Ministry of Agriculture and
Farmers Welfare dated 08.11.2019, the O.P. No. 2/Insurance
Company was also under an obligation to finalise the applications or
refund the premium within the stipulated period. Since the O.P. No.
2/Insurance Company neither approved the complainant’s application
nor refunded the premium within the prescribed time and retained the
premium until 28.05.2020, it was also guilty of deficiency in service.
Consequently, distinguishing the precedents relied upon by the O.P.
No. 2/Insurance Company, the State Commission held that both the
Bank and the Insurance Company were jointly and severally liable to
20
compensate the complainant and accordingly modified the order of
the District Commission by directing both respondents to pay the
awarded compensation jointly and severally, while permitting the
Bank to remit the premium afresh to the Insurance Company or
recover the refunded premium from the complainant’s account, if
already credited.
7. The O.P. No. 2/Insurance Company further challenged the order
dated 30.10.2024 passed by the State Commission by filing Second
Appeals before the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, New Delhi. The learned National Commission
dismissed the second appeals preferred by the O.P. No. 2/Insurance
Company vide order dated 01.10.2025 and affirmed the order of the
Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The
National Commission observed that the O.P. No. 2/Insurance
Company had confined its challenge to the issue of inter se liability
between the O.P. No. 1/Bank and the O.P. No. 2/Insurance Company
and did not dispute the entitlement of the complainant/farmers to
compensation under the PMFBY. It has been held that the contention
that the complainants were not consumers vis-à-vis the O.P. No.
2/Insurance Company and that there was no privity of contract
between them was of no consequence in the facts of the case, as the
PMFBY is a multi-agency welfare scheme wherein the O.P. No.
1/Bank and the O.P. No. 2/Insurance Company perform
interdependent statutory functions. The National Commission found
that while the O.P. No. 1/Bank was negligent in failing to upload the
complainants’ particulars on the portal within the stipulated period,
the O.P. No. 2/Insurance Company was equally at fault in not
21
refunding the premium within three weeks despite the Bank’s failure
to furnish the requisite details and in retaining the premium for nearly
ten months. Holding that the Scheme envisages coordinated
functioning of all implementing agencies and that both the O.P. No.
1/Bank and the O.P. No. 2/Insurance Company had contributed to the
complainants being deprived of the benefits of the Scheme, the
National Commission concluded that the State Commission had
passed a well-reasoned order and, finding no ground for interference,
upheld the finding of joint and several liability and dismissed all the
second appeals. Hence, these petitions.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/Insurance Company
would submit that the petitioner, Agricultural Insurance Company of
India Limited (AIC), is a Government of India undertaking
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in
implementing crop insurance schemes, including the PMFBY.
Respondent No.1 is Punjab National Bank, Bhandarpur Branch,
which functions as the nodal bank for enrollment of loanee farmers
under the PMFBY, while Respondent No.2 is a farmer who had
availed a Kisan Credit Card (KCC) loan from Respondent No.
1/Bank. Under the PMFBY Operational Guidelines, it is the exclusive
statutory responsibility of the lending bank to enroll eligible loanee
farmers by uploading their particulars, including land and crop details,
on the National Crop Insurance Portal (NCIP), deduct the farmer’s
share of the premium and remit the consolidated premium to the
insurer. The petitioner receives only the aggregate premium amount
from the Bank without farmer-wise particulars, and they have no
independent mechanism to verify whether the premium relating to a
22
particular farmer has been remitted or whether the farmer has been
uploaded on the NCIP. Consequently, unless the details of a farmer
are uploaded by the Bank on the NCIP, no insurance contract comes
into existence, and such a farmer cannot be treated as insured under
the Scheme. Although Respondent No.2 had obtained a KCC loan
and the Respondent No. 1/Bank deducted the insurance premium
from their account for Kharif-2019, the Respondent No. 1/Bank failed
to upload their particulars on the NCIP within the stipulated period. As
a result, Respondent No.2/complainants in all the writ petitions were
never enrolled under the PMFBY and were, therefore, not eligible to
receive crop insurance benefits from the petitioner. Reliance is placed
upon Clause 17.2 and Clause 35.5.2.7 of the PMFBY Operational
Guidelines, which expressly provide that only those farmers whose
data is uploaded on the NCIP are entitled to insurance coverage and
that, where a farmer is deprived of insurance due to incorrect, partial
or non-uploading of particulars, the concerned Bank alone is liable for
the consequences and payment of the claim.
9. He would further argue that the Central Government had, on three
occasions, reopened the NCIP portal and extended the last date for
uploading farmers’ data to enable Banks to rectify omissions. Despite
these repeated opportunities, Respondent No.1/Bank failed to upload
the particulars of Respondent No.2/complainants. After completion of
reconciliation, the petitioner repeatedly requested the banks to
furnish account details so that excess premium collections could be
refunded, and several communications as well as meetings with the
State Government and the State Level Bankers’ Committee were
held for this purpose. Owing to the non-cooperation of the banks, the
23
refund process was delayed and, eventually, the excess premium
pertaining to the Respondent No. 1/Bank was returned in accordance
with the prescribed procedure. The Respondent No. 1/Bank failed to
upload the complainant’s particulars despite repeated extensions
granted by the Central Government for data entry and, consequently,
the entire liability for denial of insurance benefits squarely rests upon
the Respondent No. 1/Bank. He would rely upon the communications
issued by the Government of India dated 15.01.2021, the State
Government order dated 14.06.2021 and the decision of the State
Level Coordination Committee on Crop Insurance dated 24.06.2024.
10. It was further argued that the Consumer Commissions below
committed an error in relying upon the State Government Notification
dated 08.07.2019 and the letter of the Ministry of Agriculture dated
08.11.2019 for fastening joint and several liability upon the petitioner.
According to the petitioner, the notification dated 08.07.2019 applies
only to cases where discrepancies arise in applications already
uploaded on the NCIP and cannot govern cases of “No Portal Entry”,
where the Respondent No. 1/Bank failed to upload the farmer’s
details altogether. The petitioner had duly approved all valid
applications uploaded on the NCIP and disbursed insurance claims to
all eligible insured farmers for Kharif-2019. Had the respondent-Bank
uploaded the complainant’s particulars during the extended period
made available by the Government, the complainant would have
been covered under the Scheme and would have received the
insurance claim. It was, therefore, argued that the findings of the
State Commission and the National Commission fastening joint and
several liability upon the petitioner are legally unsustainable, being
24
contrary to the PMFBY Guidelines and the binding directions issued
by the competent Central and State authorities. Therefore, the
impugned orders be set aside, and the order passed by the District
Consumer Commission exonerating the petitioner be restored.
11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1/Bank
supported the impugned orders passed by the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission and submitted that no jurisdictional
error or perversity is made out warranting interference under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. The Respondent No. 1/Bank had duly
discharged its obligation by deducting the requisite crop insurance
premium from the complainant’s KCC account and remitting the
same to the petitioner/Insurance Company within the prescribed time.
Once the premium amount stood remitted, the Insurance Company
was under a corresponding obligation to scrutinize the data received,
reconcile the premium with the entries available on the NCIP, notify
the Bank of any discrepancy and take appropriate steps either to
approve the proposal or to return the premium within the time
stipulated under the applicable Government notifications. It was
argued that the petitioner failed to perform these obligations and
instead retained the premium amount without either extending
insurance coverage or refunding the amount to the Respondent No.
1/Bank, thereby depriving the complainant of the benefits of the
Scheme. He further submitted that the petitioner cannot avoid its
liability by relying upon the plea of “No Portal Entry”, particularly
when the premium amount had admittedly been received by it. It was
argued that the State Government Notification dated 08.07.2019
25
specifically obligates the Insurance Company to communicate
discrepancies to the concerned Bank and, in the event of non-
resolution within the prescribed period, either refund the premium or
bear the liability for payment of the claim. Despite repeated requests,
the petitioner neither accepted the complainant’s proposal nor
refunded the premium amount, and, therefore, the Consumer
Commissions rightly held that the Insurance Company was equally
responsible for the loss suffered by the complainant. It is further
submitted that the findings recorded by the District Commission, as
modified by the State Commission and affirmed by the National
Commission, are based upon an appreciation of the Scheme
Guidelines and the relevant notifications and do not call for
interference in the supervisory writ jurisdiction, and prayed that the
writ petition be dismissed.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents annexed to the writ petition.
13. In the present case, the controversy does not relate to the entitlement
of the complainant/farmers to receive compensation under the
PMFBY, as the said issue has attained finality. The limited question
raised by the petitioner/Insurance Company is with regard to the
fastening of joint and several liability upon it along with the
Respondent No. 1/Bank. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, upon a detailed appreciation of the PMFBY Operational
Guidelines, the Government notifications and the material available
on record, modified the order of the District Commission by holding
both the Respondent No. 1/Bank and the petitioner/Insurance
26
Company liable, which has been affirmed by the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission. It is well settled that while
exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court does not sit as a
Court of appeal over the findings recorded by the tribunals below and
interference is warranted only where the findings suffer from patent
perversity, manifest illegality or jurisdictional error. The parameters
governing the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction stand authoritatively
explained by the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty v.
Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329, wherein it has been
held that Article 227 is intended to keep subordinate courts and
tribunals within the bounds of their authority and cannot be invoked
for re-appreciation of evidence and held that:-
“40. Same principles have been followed by this
Court in Mani Nariman Daruwala v. Phiroz N.
Bhatena1 , wherein it has been held that in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the
High Court can set aside or reverse finding of an
inferior court or tribunal only in a case where
there is no evidence or where no reasonable
person could possibly have come to the
conclusion which the court or tribunal has come
to. This Court made it clear that except to this
“limited extent” the High Court has no jurisdiction
to interfere with the findings of fact (see SCC pp.
149-50, para 18). In coming to the above finding,
this Court relied on its previous decision rendered
in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S.
Guram2. The decision in Chandavarkar is based
on the principle of the Constitution Bench1 (1991) 3 SCC 141
2 (1986) 4 SCC 447
27judgments in Waryam Singh3 and Nagendra
Nath4 discussed above.
41. To the same effect is the judgment rendered in
Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani v. Pratapsing
Mohansingh Pardeshi5. In SCC para 9 at pp. 579-
80 of the Report, this Court clearly reminded the
High Court that under Article 227 that it cannot
assume unlimited prerogative to correct all
species of hardship or wrong decisions. Its
exercise must be restricted to grave dereliction of
duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law and justice.
42. Same views have been taken by this Court in
respect of the ambit of High Court’s power under
Article 227 in Lonand Grampanchayat v. Ramgiri
Gosavi6 (AIR pp. 222-34, para 5 of the Report)
and the decision of this Court in Jijabai Vithalrao
Gajre v. Pathankhan7. The Constitution Bench
ratio in Waryam Singh8 about the scope of Article
227 was again followed in Ahmedabad Mfg. &
Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd. v. Ram Tahel Ramnand9.
4310*. In a rather recent decision of the Supreme
Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai 11 a
two-Judge Bench of this Court discussed the
principles of interference by the High Court under
Article 227. Of course in Surya Dev Rai this Court
held that a writ of certiorari is maintainable
against the order of a civil court, subordinate to3 Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, AIR 1954 SC 215
4 Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commr. Of Hills Division and Appeals, AIR 1958 SC 398
5 (1995)6 SCC 576
6 AIR 1968 SCC 222
7 (1970)2 SCC 717
8 Waryam singh v. Amarnath AIR 1954 SC 215
9 (1972)1 SCC 898
10 *ED: Para 43 Corrected vide official Corrigendum No. F.3/ED.B.J./84/2010 dated 26-08-2010.
11 (2003)6 SCC 675
28the High Court (SCC p. 688, para 19 of the
Report). The correctness of that ratio was
doubted by another Division Bench of this Court
in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath12 and a request
to the Hon’ble Chief Justice for a reference to a
larger Bench is pending. But insofar as the
formulation of the principles on the scope of
interference by the High Court under Article 227 is
concerned, there is no divergence of views.
44. In para 38 sub-para (4) at SCC p. 695 of the
Report, the following principles have been laid
down in Surya Dev Rai and they are set out:
“38.(4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227
of the is exercised for keeping the subordinate
courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction.
When a subordinate court has assumed a
jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to
exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the
jurisdiction though available is being exercised by
the court in a manner not permitted by law and
failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned
thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its
supervisory jurisdiction.”
45. Sub-paras (5), (7) and (8) of para 38 are also
on the same lines and extracted below: (Surya
Dev Rai case SCC pp. 695-96)
“38.(5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to
correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the
following requirements are satisfied: (I) the error
is manifest and apparent on the face of the
proceedings such as when it is based on clear
ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of
12 (2009)5 SCC 616
29
law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of
justice has occasioned thereby.
(6) * * *
(7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the
supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised
sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the
judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to
act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice
should occasion. Care, caution and
circumspection need to be exercised, when any of
the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be
invoked during the pendency of any suit or
proceedings in a subordinate court and the error
though calling for correction is yet capable of
being corrected at the conclusion of the
proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred
there against and entertaining a petition invoking
certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of the High
Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early
disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High
Court may feel inclined to intervene where the
error is such, as, if not corrected at that very
moment, may become incapable of correction at a
later stage and refusal to intervene would result in
travesty of justice or where such refusal itself
would result in prolonging of the lis.
(8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or
supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a
court of appeal and indulge in re appreciation or
evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing
inferences or correct errors of mere formal or
technical character.”
49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of
this Court, the following principles on the exercise
30
of High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution may be formulated:
(a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
is different from a petition under Article 227. The
mode of exercise of power by the High Court
under these two articles is also different.
(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227
cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the
conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is
substantially different from the history of
conferment of the power of superintendence on
the High Courts under Article 227 and have been
discussed above.
(c) High Courts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in
exercise of its power of superintendence under
Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the
orders of tribunals or courts inferior to it. Nor can
it, in exercise of this power, act as a court of
appeal over the orders of the court or tribunal
subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative
statutory mode of redressal has been provided,
that would also operate as a restrain on the
exercise of this power by the High Court.
(d) The parameters of interference by High Courts
in exercise of their power of superintendence
have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In
this regard the High Court must be guided by the
principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of
this Court in Waryam Singh and the principles in
Waryam Singh have been repeatedly followed by
subsequent Constitution Benches and various
other decisions of this Court.
(e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh,
followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in
31exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can
interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and
courts subordinate to it, “within the bounds of their
authority”.
(f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such
tribunals and courts by exercising jurisdiction
which is vested in them and by not declining to
exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them.
(g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f),
High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of
superintendence when there has been a patent
perversity in the orders of the tribunals and courts
subordinate to it or where there has been a gross
and manifest failure of justice or the basic
principles of natural justice have been flouted.
(h) In exercise of its power of superintendence
High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors
of law or fact or just because another view than
the one taken by the tribunals or courts
subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other
words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly
exercised.
(i) The High Court’s power of superintendence
under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any
statute. It has been declared a part of the basic
structure of the Constitution by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union
of India13 and therefore abridgment by a
constitutional amendment is also very doubtful.
(j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a
rather cognate provision, like Section 115 of the
Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code
(Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut13 (1997)3 SCC 261: 1997 SCC (L&S) 577
32down the ambit of High Court’s power under
Article 227. At the same time, it must be
remembered that such statutory amendment does
not correspondingly expand the High Court’s
jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227.
(k) The power is discretionary and has to be
exercised on equitable principle. In an appropriate
case, the power can be exercised suo motu.
(l) On a proper appreciation of the wide and
unfettered power of the High Court under Article
227, it transpires that the main object of this
article is to keep strict administrative and judicial
control by the High Court on the administration of
justice within its territory.
(m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain
efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the
entire machinery of justice in such a way as it
does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of
interference under this article is to be kept to the
minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does
not come to a halt and the fountain of justice
remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain
public confidence in the functioning of the
tribunals and courts subordinate to the High
Court.
(n) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial
intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of
relief in individual cases but should be directed for
promotion of public confidence in the
administration of justice in the larger public
interest whereas Article 226 is meant for
protection of individual grievance. Therefore, the
power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its
33
exercise is subject to high degree of judicial
discipline pointed out above.
(o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this
power will be counterproductive and will divest
this extraordinary power of its strength and
vitality.”
14. The same principle has been reiterated in the case of Radhey
Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423, wherein the Supreme
Court clarified that the power under Article 227 has not been
expanded and is intended only to ensure that subordinate courts act
within the limits of their jurisdiction and that interference is warranted
only in cases of patent perversity, gross miscarriage of justice, or
jurisdictional error.
15. From the record, it is not in dispute that the Respondent No. 1/Bank
deducted the crop insurance premium from the accounts of the
complainant/farmers and remitted the same to the petitioner/
Insurance Company. Equally undisputed is the fact that the
particulars of the complainants were not uploaded on the NCIP,
resulting in the denial of insurance coverage. The petitioner has
attempted to contend that in the absence of portal entry, no contract
of insurance ever came into existence and, therefore, the entire
liability must rest upon the Respondent No. 1/Bank alone. However,
the Consumer Commissions below have not ignored this omission on
the part of the Respondent No. 1/Bank; rather, they have specifically
recorded a finding that the Respondent No. 1/Bank was negligent in
failing to upload the requisite particulars despite repeated extensions
granted by the Central Government. At the same time, the State
34
Commission has also found that the petitioner retained the premium
amount without either extending the benefit of insurance or refunding
the premium within the stipulated period prescribed under the
applicable Government notifications. Thus, the finding of joint
negligence is founded upon an appreciation of the obligations cast
upon both implementing agencies under the Scheme and cannot be
said to be either arbitrary or unsupported by the record.
16. This Court also finds no substance in the submission that the State
Commission misapplied the Government Notification dated
08.07.2019 and the communication issued by the Ministry of
Agriculture dated 08.11.2019. The State Commission has taken note
of the fact that even after reconciliation of the premium, the petitioner
neither refunded the premium amount within the prescribed time nor
ensured that the discrepancy was resolved, despite retaining the
premium for a considerable period. It is reflected from paragraph 8 of
the order dated 01.10.2025 passed by the learned National
Commission that the premium was deducted on 30.07.2019 and it
was refunded on 28.05.2020, i.e. after about 10 months. It is relevant
here to reproduced the paragraph 8 of the order passed by National
Commission, which reads as under:-
“8. Opposite party No. 1 bank reiterating its
submissions made before the District Commission
has argued that due to Aadhar mismatch in the
PMFBY portal the opposite party No. 2 insurance
company rejected the proposal of insurance and
returned the premium on 28.05.2020 after about
one year from the date of deduction. Learned
district commission has based the impugned
35order upon notification dated 24.05.2017 of CG
Government, whereas the premium was deducted
on 30.07.2019 and at that time notification No.
3700/ F-02/13/ PMFBY/ 2019/ 14-2 dated
08.07.2019 was already issued and effective. As
per condition No. 27of the notification of the year
2019 if the concerned bank fails to provide
information/documents for rectification of defects,
it was obligatory for the insurance company to
refund the premium within three weeks, failing
which the liability to pay compensation shall lie
with the insurance company. In the instant case
premium was deducted on 30.07.2019 and it was
refunded on 28.05.2020 i.e. after about one year.
The insurance company used the amount of
premium during that period and refused the same
after payment of compensation to other farmers. It
is prayed that this appeal be allowed and the
liability of payment of compensation be shifted
upon the opposite party No. 2 insurance
company.”
17. The National Commission has also considered the notification dated
08.07.2019 issued by the State Government, and para 16 of the
order passed by the National Commission is as under:-
“16. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1
Bank has drawn our attention towards Condition
No.27 of Notification No.3700/ F-02/13/ PMFBY/
2019/14-2 dated 08.07.2019 under which the
Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana for Kharif &
Rabi crop of 2019-20 were implemented in all the
27 districts of Chhattisgarh. Condition No.27 of
the said notification envisages that: –
यदि वित्तीय संस्था द्वारा नियत समय सिमा में जानकारी दस्तावेज
उपलब्ध नहीं कराई जाती है तो बिमा कं पनी द्वारा समबन्धित
36प्रीमियम राशि तीन सप्ताह के भीतर बैंको को अनिवार्य रूप से
वापस किया जाना होगा अन्यथा कृ षको को नियमानुसार दवा
प्रतिपूर्ति को सम्पूर्ण दायित्व बिमा कं पनी की होगी”
******* From bare reading of Condition No.27 of the relevant
notification of 2019 which was applicable for Kharif and Rabi season
of 2019-20 it clearly appears that in case of failure of the Bank/
Financial Institution in providing information/ documents it was
obligatory for the concerned insurance company to refund the
premium within three weeks otherwise the liability of payment of
claim compensation, as per rule, would be of the concerned
insurance company. Thus, the opposite party No.2 insurance
company was duty bound to refund the premium within three weeks
at least from the final extended cut-off date of entry in the portal or
maximum after three weeks from 18th November 2019 but the
opposite party No.2 insurance company kept the premium till
28.05.2020. But at this juncture the negligence and deficiency in
service committed by the opposite party No.1 Bank in not entering
the correct information of the farmers in the concerned portal even
after time extensions till 14.11.2019 also cannot be brushed aside,
hence in our considered view both the opposite parties are jointly and
severally liable for payment of compensation under the crop
insurance in question.
18. The National Commission has concurred with the said finding by
observing that the PMFBY is a welfare scheme requiring coordinated
functioning of all implementing agencies and that the omission on the
part of one agency cannot absolve the other from discharging its
corresponding obligations under the Scheme. These are findings of
37
fact based upon the interpretation of the Scheme Guidelines and the
Government communications.
19. It is equally significant that the petitioner does not dispute that the
complainants were otherwise eligible farmers and that similarly
situated farmers received compensation under the PMFBY. The only
reason for denial of the benefit to the complainants was the failure of
the implementing agencies to complete the procedural requirements
contemplated under the Scheme. The object of the PMFBY is to
provide financial protection to farmers against crop loss arising from
natural calamities. Being a beneficial social welfare scheme, its
provisions cannot be construed in a manner that defeats its object or
leaves an innocent farmer remediless because of lapses attributable
to the implementing agencies. The Consumer Commissions have,
therefore, rightly concentrated on ensuring that the beneficiaries of
the Scheme are compensated and have left the question of inter se
adjustment of liability between the Respondent No. 1/Bank and the
petitioner/Insurance Company to be worked out in accordance with
law. Such an approach is consistent with the beneficial object of the
Scheme and cannot be characterised as suffering from any
jurisdictional infirmity.
20. Since the petitioner/Insurance Company is claiming the benefit of
Clauses 17.2 and 35.5.13 of the Operational Guideline of PMFBY, it
is necessary to take notice of the said provisions here, which are as
under:-
“17.2 Consolidated declaration/ formats to be
uploaded/entered electronically by Nodal
38Banks/Branches shall contain details about total
insured area of the farmers, number of Loanee
and Non-loanee farmers enrolled, Total Premium
Amount remitted, premium remittance Unique
Transaction Reference (UTR no.) and Date of
remittance as per the format provided on the
NCIP. Banks are required to upload the insured
farmers’ data mandatorily on the National Crop
Insurance Portal. No other platform shall be used
for uploading/submission of farmers’ data. Those
farmers whose data is uploaded on the NCIP shall
only be eligible for Insurance coverage and
accordingly the premium subsidy will also be
released. In cases where farmers are denied crop
insurance due to incorrect/partial/non-uploading
of their details on portal, concerned Banks/
Intermediaries shall be responsible for payment of
claims(if any).
35.5.13 Banks should ensure that farmers are not
deprived of any benefit under the Scheme due to
errors/omissions/commissions of the concerned
branch/PACS, and in case of such errors, the
concerned agencies shall have to make good of
all such losses.”
21. The submission of the petitioner/Insurance Company that Clause
17.2 and Clause 35.5.13 of the PMFBY Operational Guidelines
completely exonerate the Insurance Company also does not merit
acceptance in the facts of the present case. The Consumer
Commissions have not ignored the statutory obligations of the
Respondent No. 1/Bank under the Guidelines; rather, those
obligations have been expressly recognised. However, the finding of
joint liability has been recorded after considering the entire Scheme,
39
the State Government notification and the conduct of the petitioner in
retaining the premium without timely refund. Such a composite
appreciation of the material cannot be substituted by this Court
merely because the petitioner seeks a different interpretation of
certain clauses of the Guidelines.
22. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that, in view of
Clause 35.5.13 of the PMFBY Operational Guidelines, it should be
granted liberty to recover the amount of compensation from the
Respondent No. 1/Bank, also does not merit acceptance. Clause
35.5.13 undoubtedly provides that where a farmer is deprived of
insurance benefits on account of any error, omission or negligence
attributable to the concerned implementing agency, such agency
shall be responsible for making good the resultant loss. However, the
said provision cannot be invoked by the petitioner to absolve itself of
its own independent deficiency in service. The concurrent findings
recorded by the State Commission and affirmed by the National
Commission clearly establish that although the petitioner had
received the premium amount on 30.07.2019, it retained the same
until 28.05.2020 without either extending insurance coverage to the
complainants or refunding the premium within the prescribed period,
despite being aware that the requisite particulars had not been
uploaded on the portal. Such prolonged retention of the premium
without extending any corresponding benefit constituted an
independent deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner/
Insurance Company. Once the petitioner/Insurance Company itself is
found to have contributed to the deprivation of the complainants’
legitimate claim under the Scheme, it cannot seek the protection of
40
Clause 35.5.13 to shift the entire liability upon the Respondent No.
1/Bank. The benefit of the said clause is available only to an agency
that is free from blame and has suffered liability solely because of the
default of another implementing agency; it cannot be extended to a
party whose own negligence has concurrently caused the loss.
Consequently, no liberty, as sought by the petitioner, deserves to be
granted under Clause 35.5.13 of the Operational Guidelines of
PMFBY.
23. In the present case, this Court finds that the State Commission and
the National Commission have assigned cogent and plausible
reasons for fastening joint and several liability upon the
petitioner/Insurance Company and the Respondent No. 1/Bank after
considering the relevant Scheme Guidelines, Government
notifications and the evidence on record. The findings are neither
shown to be perverse nor contrary to any statutory provision.
Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
impugned order passed by the learned National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission affirming the order of the State Commission
does not call for interference.
24. Accordingly, all the writ petitions, being devoid of merit, deserve to be
and are hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
ved
