Dismissed

Peer Mohammed v. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd.

Madras HC7 Apr 2021WP/33128/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the denial of crop insurance under PMFBY for 2018-19, the Court refused to examine the area-wise shortfall data. It held the data-specific dispute is not for the Writ Court, directing individual farmers to claim before insurance authorities, consumer forums, or civil courts.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; individual farmers directed to pursue claims before insurance companies, consumer forums, or civil courts.

Peer Mohammed Vs Agriculture Insurance Company of… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.04.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.33128 of 2019

¶7

Peer Mohammed .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Agriculture Insurance Company India Limited,
Regional Office,
rep. by its Regional Manager,
Andhra Building,
323, Thambu Chetty Street,
Parrys Corner,
Chennai - 600 001.
2.The Revenue and Disaster Management,
rep. by its Secretary,
(Office of the Disaster Management)
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
3.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Thiruvarur District.
4.Agricultural Deputy Director,
Agricultural Joint Director Office,
Thiruvarur.
5.The Thasildhar,
Vedharanniyam,
Nagapattinam District. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents to settle the crop insurance amount for the year
2018-19 in view of the petitioner's representation dated
02.10.2019.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arivazhagan

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

For Respondent

¶11

: Mr.P.S.Kothandaraman for R1 Ms.R.J.Radhika, Government Advocate for R2,3 and 5

¶12

ORDER

¶13

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶14

The claim of the petitioner is for a direction on the respondent authorities to settle the crop insurance amount for the year 2018-19 in terms of a claim made on October 2, 2019.

¶15

Counter-affidavits have been filed by the first respondent insurance company and the third respondent District Collector.

¶16

According to the affidavit of the first respondent, the insurance is covered by a central scheme by the name of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY), which was introduced from Kharif 2016 season replacing the erstwhile National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) and the modified NAIS.

¶17

The affidavit of the first respondent goes on to explain that the scheme has certain conditions and the approach is areabased, in the sense that the shortfall is assessed on an areawise basis after taking into account certain parameters. It is only upon an area reporting a shortfall on the basis of the parameters set, would any right to claim insurance arise. At paragraph 5(iii)(f) of the first respondent's affidavit, it has been spelt out that any insurance claim is assessed on the basis of the difference between threshold yield and the actual yield, divided by the threshold yield, multiplied by the sum insured. Thus, the two variables have to be ascertained - threshold yield and actual yield. The scheme apparently defines threshold yield "for a crop in a notified area to be the average yield of the past seven years (excluding a maximum of two calamity years as notified by the State government)." The formula for calculating the quantum of insurance due has been indicated as noticed above.

¶18

At paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is submitted that farmers in the three notified areas, namely Nedumbalam village in Thiruthuraipoondi, Kallikudi village in Edaiyur and Singalanthi village in Thiruthuraipoondi are not eligible to receive any amount on account of crop insurance for the year 2018-19 since there was no shortfall in these areas in the relevant period. Indeed, the

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

chart at the foot of paragraph 7 of the first respondent's affidavit indicates the threshold yields and the actual yields. Since the threshold yield is well below the actual yield in all the areas, the first respondent submits that no farmer is entitled to obtain any crop insurance for the year 2018-19 for which appropriate figures have been furnished in the affidavit.

¶21

In the light of such specific stand and data, the Writ Court cannot go into the matter. However, if there is an individual case where the concerned farmer perceives that he will be entitled to some amount from the insurance, it will be open to the concerned farmer to approach the insurance company and pursue the claim in accordance with law.

¶22

W.P.No.33128 of 2019 is disposed of by leaving the individual farmers free to lodge appropriate insurance claims before pursuing the matters before the Consumer Forum having jurisdiction or before an appropriate civil Court.

¶23

There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS VII)
/TRUE COPY/
Sub-Assistant Registrar
bbr
To:

¶24

1.The Regional Manager, Agriculture Insurance Company India Limited, Regional Office, Andhra Building, 323, Thambu Chetty Street, Parrys Corner, Chennai - 600 001.

¶25

2.The Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management, (Office of the Disaster Management) Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

¶26

3.The District Collector, Collectorate, Thiruvarur District.

¶27

4.The Agricultural Deputy Director, Agricultural Joint Director Office, Thiruvarur.

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

5.The Thasildhar, Vedharanniyam, Nagapattinam District.

¶30

+1CC TO MR.P.S.KOTHANDARAMAN, ADVOCATE, SR.NO. 22557

¶31

W.P.No.33128 of 2019

¶32

PL(CO) KKN 26.04.2021

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Peer Mohammed v. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peer Mohammed v. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Rajangam Vs Union Territory of Puducherry

M/S.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs Inspector General of Registration

Kiran Global Chems Limited Vs Assistant General Manager

R.Jayakkumar Vs The State of TamilNadu

E.Bhaskar Vs Union of India

S.B.Gandhi Vs The Member Secretary