JUDGMENT : Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. 1. Learned senior counsel appearing for the insurance company hands over a printout of an e-mail indicating the losses suffered by the farmers in general in the Kotulpur area for the season BSB Rabi 2019-2020 on an estimated basis and in general terms, taking into account only yield losses. 2. However, learned senior counsel candidly submits that this is only a general estimation of the losses and do not pertain to the particular cases of the present petitioners. Moreover, the insurance scheme in question was apparently relating to other components of losses as well, such as harvest losses, etc. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank submits that the bank could not upload the relevant particulars and consolidated details for each of the petitioners/agriculturists in terms of the notification dated November 29, 2019 as well as the insurance scheme due to technical glitches which had adverse effect nationwide in several branches of the bank. As such, there was no fault on the part of the bank in the consolidated details and particulars of the farmers not being able to be uploaded within the stipulated period. However, it is submitted that the premium amounts paid by each of the petitioners/farmers were paid to the insurance company in due time. 4. At this, learned senior counsel for the insurance company submits that even if such amounts were credited to the insurance company, without any specific particulars or consolidated details as envisaged in the scheme and the notification, there was no way for the insurance company to allocate the said transfers under any particular head or under any particular scheme. 5. Moreover, it transpires from the arguments of the State as well as the insurance company that the liability of the State to meet their part of the insurance scheme would arise only upon the bank complying with the requirements of uploading consolidated details of the farmers. 6. 5. Moreover, it transpires from the arguments of the State as well as the insurance company that the liability of the State to meet their part of the insurance scheme would arise only upon the bank complying with the requirements of uploading consolidated details of the farmers. 6. Since in the present case we find that the petitioners/farmers had paid their premiums in due time but it was the bank which could not upload the consolidated details, leading to the insurance schemes never materializing for the respective petitioners, it cannot be said, in terms of the arguments of the bank, that the liability for the loss suffered by the farmers would only be restricted in respect of the bank to the extent of the bank’s supposed contribution under the insurance scheme. 7. The losses of the farmers never came under the coverage of the insurance scheme at all only due to the fault of the bank in not uploading the details of the farmers in consolidated form within due time. The effect of the same was that the insurance scheme itself did not materialize in respect of the petitioners/cultivators, leading to the petitioners losing the coverage of insurance altogether. 8. The bank also fails to plead or prove that, in view of the technical glitch, it had made any endeavour to intimate the consolidated details in respect of the cultivators to the insurance company by any other mode, or had sought to explore any other option in consultation with the insurance company as to how such intimation could be given in order for the insurance coverage of the petitioner/cultivators to be ensured. 9. In fact, the liability of the State to match the contribution of the bank, as per the concerned Notification and Scheme, would arise only upon the bank having complied with their preliminary liability of uploading the consolidated details, which it did not do despite the petitioners having paid their insurance premiums in time. 10. However, at this juncture, learned counsel for the parties give suggestions as to how the conundrum can be resolved, since the period of coverage of the concerned insurance scheme, i.e. during the Rabi season for the year 2019-2020, has lapsed long back. 11. 10. However, at this juncture, learned counsel for the parties give suggestions as to how the conundrum can be resolved, since the period of coverage of the concerned insurance scheme, i.e. during the Rabi season for the year 2019-2020, has lapsed long back. 11. Learned senior counsel for the insurance company suggests that a waiver scheme can be formulated by the bank with regard to the interest payable by the farmers/petitioners in respect of the loans taken by them from the respondent-bank for the purpose of cultivation during the relevant period. Learned counsel for the respondent/bank assures the court that she will take instructions in the meantime, as to the probable modalities by which the grievance of the farmers can be assuaged. 12. Accordingly, let the matter stand adjourned till January 9, 2026 for passing further orders.