Supreme Court Stays Bombay HC Direction To Bajaj Allianz To Compensate 3.5 lakh Farmers Who Suffered Losses In Rains

The Supreme Court has stayed a Bombay High Court order directing Bajaj Allianz General Insurance to compensate, under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, 3,57,287 agriculturists in the Osmanabad District of Maharashtra for post harvesting losses caused to Soyabean Crop in the Kharif Season 2020 on account of heavy rainfall.The Apex Court added that the stay of operation of the impugned judgment will be subject to the insurance company depositing an amount of Rs.200 crores with the Registry of the Court within a period of six weeks.The bench of Justices J. K. Maheshwari and Hima Kohli was hearing the SLP against the May decision of the Bombay High Court on a string of PILs praying for direction to the insurance company or the government authorities to compensate or to pay the sum insured to all the insured agriculturists of Osmanabad District for their all the insured crops of Kharif Season 2020 and for other reliefs. Directing the insurance company to sanction and grant compensation/claim for post harvest loss caused to the soyabean crop in Kharip season 2020 to the remaining 357287 agriculturists in Osmanabad district, the High Court had added that if the said amount is not paid by the insurance company within a period of six weeks, the state government is directed to pay such claim for compensation for post harvest loss within a period of six weeks thereafter.After hearing Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha for the SLP petitioner- insurance company, the bench of Justices Maheshwari and Kohli issued notice on the SLP. The bench proceeded to pass the following order- "In the meantime, there will be a stay of operation of the impugned judgment subject to the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.200 crores with the Registry of this Court within a period of six weeks from today, as requested. The amount so deposited shall be invested in an interest bearing fixed deposit in a nationalised bank until further orders."However, the bench added, "In the event the amount is not deposited within six weeks from today, the order of stay shall stand automatically vacated, without further reference to the Court."The bench granted 6 weeks' time for filing the counter-affidavit.Mr. Tankha argued, "As per the scheme, in order to be eligible, the claims are to be intimated within 72 hours. Here, the intimations were not received in time...So much time has passed by now, how should we make an ascertainment of the actual losses now?...Moreover, the High Court order refers to the National Disaster Response Fund mechanism and not the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. With a burden of over 400 crores, I will be shut down". The bench of Justices Maheshwari and Kohli asked, "There was the March 5, 2021 order of the state (As recorded in the impugned decision of the High Court, it was the case of the Maharashtra government that though agriculturists who had suffered loss due to localised disaster, due to unawareness of the provisions of the scheme, lack of communication and telecommunication equipment during the season, could not give crop loss intimations to the insurance company and were thus deprived from the benefit of the said insurance policy, the state government, through the Commissioner of Agriculture, issued letter of March 5, 2021 to the concerned insurance companies directing to take necessary steps to pay claims based on survey of crop damage prepared as per National Disaster Relief Fund norms, and followed up the matter rigorously with insurance companies in subsequent meetings and notices)...You kept quiet after you got it, you did not challenge it"Proceedings before the High CourtIn the impugned order, the High Court noted that it is not in dispute that the Union of India had floated a scheme namely Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana 2020 which was applicable for three years; that the state of Maharashtra was implementing the said scheme and had issued Government Resolution dated 29th June, 2020 through the department of Agriculture. It noted that Clause 7 of the said scheme provided for the protected object of the said scheme; that Clause 7.5 provided for post harvest losses; that the said scheme was applicable to large number of agriculturists in the district; that the state government had executed memorandum of understanding with the insurance company for implementation of the insurance scheme; and that the state government was a nodal agency between the agriculturists and the insurance company."The petitioners/agriculturists had paid the insurance premium for such insurance coverage. The state government had also contributed part of the insurance premium on behalf of the agriculturists. During the month of October 2020 there was heavy rain fall in Osmanabad district at the time of harvesting of the crops. The crops were badly damaged. The harvested small hips in the field decayed and decomposed. It is the case of petitioners that, there were germination on the spot. Even after harvesting of the crops stored hips of the ...

Supreme Court Stays Bombay HC Direction To Bajaj Allianz To Compensate 3.5 lakh Farmers Who Suffered Losses In Rains

Mehal Jain

Tags