Allowed

Vikram Shrirang Jawale and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC11 Sept 2018WP/10979/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench allowed a writ petition filed by farmers seeking compensation under a State Government crop insurance scheme. The court directed the State Bank of Hyderabad to pay the crop insurance compensation to the petitioners along with interest at 14% p.a., holding the bank liable for failing to deposit the premium received from the farmers to the insurance company.

What did the court decide?

Director respondent No. 4 to pay crop insurance/compensation as per rules for 2014-15 with interest @14% p.a., and to facilitate assessment by respondent No. 3.

Vikram Shrirang Jawale and Others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

10979.17wp

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 10979 OF 2017

¶5

1.Vikram s/o Shrirang Jawale,
Age: 43years, Occ: Agril.,
R/o. Hadongri, Tq. Bhoom,
Dist. Osmanabad.
2.Annasaheb s/o Baburao Talekar,
Age: 44 years, Occ: Service,
R/o. Hadongri, Tq. Bhoom,
Dist. Osmanabad.
3.Laxman s/o Bhagwan Daingade,
Age: 45 years, Occ: Agril.,
R/o. Hadongri, Tq. Bhoom,
Dist. Osmanabad...PETITIONERS
VERSUS

¶6

1.The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Agricultural Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2.The Agricultural Commissioner,
Pune, Tq. & Dist. Pune.
3.Tata AIG,
General Insurance Company,
Through its General Manager,
A-15, Wamala, G.K. Road,
Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013.
4.The State Bank of Hyderabad
(now merged into State Banker'sof
India) Through its Branch Manager
Paranda Road, Bhoom, Tq. Bhoom
Dist. Osmanabad.

¶7

10979.17wp

¶8

(2)

¶9

5. The Agricultural Officer, Agricultural offdice, Bhoom, Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad. ..RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr D.A. Mane, Advocate for petitioners;
Mr S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1,2 & 5;
Mr S.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.3;
Mr Ruturaj Patil, Advocate for respondent No.4;

¶11

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,JJ. DATE : 11^th SEPTEMBER, 2018

¶12

ORAL ORDER :

¶13

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners.

¶14

2.Learned Counsel appearing for the

¶15

petitioners submitted that the State Government
framed a policy thereby to provide financial
assistance to the farmers so as to take care of the

¶16

farmers who have suffered loss due to national

¶17

calamity. It is submitted that as per per-
requisites of the scheme, the petitioners have
deposited amount of premium with the bank and were

¶18

expecting compensation under the scheme of the

¶19

State Government. He submits that the petitioner

¶20

raised grievance of non action of respondent Nos. 3
and 4, as such, prays for directions to respondent

¶21

Nos. 3 and 4 to pay amount of crop

¶22

insurance/compensation as per policy framed by the
State Government and rules to that effect in the
policy of the year 2014-15.

¶23

3.Learned Counsel appearing for the

¶24

petitioners by inviting our attention to the
judgment of this Court in Public Interest
Litigation No.113 of 2016 submitted that the
Division Bench of this Court in its detailed
judgment took into consideration the nature of the
scheme, requisites of the scheme, implementation of
the scheme, agencies who have taken responsibility
to implement the scheme, hurdles raised by the
agencies and technical objections also raised by
the respondents and in detailed and comprehensive
judgment, the Division Bench of this Court directed
respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to grant compensation to

¶25

the petitioners in particular and farmers in
general who are beneficiaries of the scheme.

¶26

10979.17wp

¶27

(4)

¶28

4.Our attention was invited to paragraph
Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13 of the above
referred judgment of the Division Bench. It would
be useful for our purpose to refer paragraph-13. A
question is framed by the Division Bench for
consideration and same reads thus, 'whether a case
for direction is made out whereby respondent No. 3,
or respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are liable to pay the
amount of compensation?'.

¶29

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the

¶30

petitioners submits that stock of the situation was

¶31

taken by the Division Bench in paragraphs-15 and
16, same read thus :

¶32

“15.It is, no doubt, true that the
insurance scheme is implemented since
1999 viz., before the above judgment came
to be delivered. However, it is required
to be noted that the Division Bench of
this Court has shown its sensitivity to
the issue brought before it and has
directed the State Government to take

¶33

10979.17wp

¶34

(5)

¶35

remedial measures, which perhaps, has
prompted the respondents to implement the
scheme effectively. The Division Bench of
this Court in paragraph 21.3(b) has
suggested package for subsidy on crop
insurancepremiumamongstvarious
measures to be adopted.

¶36

16.So far as the case in hand is
concerned, it is not disputed by
respondent Nos. 4 and 5-bank that it has
received premium from the agriculturists
within cut-off date, however, same was
not deposited with respondent No.2-AIC,
as there was shortage of staff and
because of communication gap.”

¶37

6.Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in their reply
filed before this Court clearly admitted about
receipt of premium before cut-off date by the
farmers and it was non action of either insurance
company or bank. The Division Bench of this Court
expressed its displeasure for non action of
respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and course adopted by the
respondents by indulging in playing game in
throwing the responsibility of each other. The

¶38

10979.17wp

¶39

(6)

¶40

Division Bench in clear words observed that the

¶41

farmers who were beneficiaries were not at fault
and they have deposited premium amount before cut-
off date. Ultimately, the Division Bench issued
directions which form the part of paragraphs-23,
24, and 25 and with these directions, public
interest litigation was allowed.

¶42

7. Ruturaj Patil, learned Counsel appearing

¶43

for respondent No. 4 State Bank of Hyderabad fairly
admits the fact situation that the petitioner have
deposited the amount of premium before cut-off
within prescribed time. Admitted position which
emerges from the perusal of the record and from the
submissions of learned Counsel is, the petitioners
though deposited amount of premium with the bank,
the bank in turn, ought to have deposited it with
the insurance company i.e. respondent No. 3 but
bank i.e. respondent No. 4 failed to deposit the
said amount with respondent No. 3.

¶44

8.Now, considering this fact situation,

¶45

10979.17wp

¶46

(7)

¶47

there is no reason for us to take any different
view than the view taken by the Division Bench in
its judgment dated 7th August, 2017.

¶48

9.Accordingly, we allow the petition with
direction to respondent No. 4 to pay the amount of
crop insurance/compensation as per rules for the
year 2014-2015 with interest @14% p.a. from the
date, amount shall be due and payable as per NAIS,
till demand drafts are drawn and paid in favour of
the petitioners.

¶49

10.We direct respondent No.3 to submit

¶50

assessment to respondent No.4 bank. Respondent No.
4 bank to submit documents to respondent No.3 if
they are readily available with respondent No. 4
within two weeks. If respondent No.4 is in need of
certain documents and those documents are not
available with respondent No.4, in that case,
respondent No. 4 may call upon the petitioners to
provide such documents by written communication.

¶51

The petitioners on receipt of such communication,

¶52

10979.17wp (8)

¶53

to supply the documents within two weeks from the
receipt of the communication from respondent No. 4
bank. This exercise of collecting documents and
submitting it to respondent No.3 be undertaken by
respondent No.4 bank within six weeks from the date
of this order.

¶54

11.With these directions, the petition is

¶55

disposed of.

¶56

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE)

¶57

(PRASANNA B. VARALE)

¶58

JUDGEJUDGE

¶59

Tupe

Vikram Shrirang Jawale and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Shrirang Jawale and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vilas Vishwanath Ugale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dr Jalaluddin Moinuddin Ahmed and Others Vs Jawahar Medical Foundation Dhule through Its Chairman and Others

Vaishali Walmikrao Bagul Vs Prerna Trust Aurangabad through Its Secretary and Others

Ashok Nivruti Jaybhaye Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Manish Dharsibhai Parmar Vs the Additional Commissioner of Income TAX-RANGE-2, Aurangabad

Ahmed Mohib Syed Vs the Union of India and Others