IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 8342 of 2000(R) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- M.K.BALAN, MADAPPATTIL, THEVARKADU, VARAPUZHA. BY ADVS. MR.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SMT.T.C.KRISHNA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. 3. PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. I.V. PRAMOD THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.13842/2000 IN O.P.NO.8342/2000 R DISMISSED 22/05/2009 SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE INSURANCE POLICY DTD. 15/06/96. P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 25/09/98. P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN O.P.NO.18541/99 DTD. 9/09/1999. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 27/11/99. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- OP No.8342 of 2000-R -------------------------------------------------------- Dated 22nd May 2009 Judgment The challenge in this OP is against Ext.P4 order passed by the third respondent, dealing with the claim of the petitioner for the benefit of the insurance policy that he had subscribed. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner who is an agriculturalist had subscribed a policy under the State Crop Insurance Scheme for forty coconut trees by paying Rs.200/- , being the premium. The period of the insurance policy is from 28.03.1996 to 27.03.1999. According to the petitioner, during 1998, on account of severe drought, 8 coconut trees were dried up and thereupon, he raised a claim for the benefit of Ext.P1. But his claim was not attended to. He filed Ext.P2 complaint which also did not yield any result. In the circumstances, the petitioner filed OP 18541/99 and by Ext.P3 judgment, this court directed the 2nd respondent Director of Agriculture to to dispose of Ext.P2. OP 8342/00 2 2. Taking note of the statement that was filed before this court in para 2 of the judgment, it has been held as follows : “On instructions, a statement is filed wherein it is stated that an enquiry was conducted through Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Varapuzha and found that the petitioner has intimated the fact to the Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan stating that eight number of coconut trees were dried up. Assistant Director of Agriculture, Aluva inspected and stated that four number of coconut trees were cut down and four number of coconut trees were found to be retained in dried up condition. So the coconut trees were dried up during the period is not disputed. The only ground stated is that the date of destroyal is not specifically mentioned. Drying up of coconut trees cannot be on a particular day. In any event, petitioner filed Ext.P2 petition before the Director of Agriculture second respondent.” OP 8342/00 3 A reading of the above paragraph would show that in the statement that was filed in that case, the respondents accepted that the coconut trees had dried up and the number of trees thus destroyed was 8. 3. Despite the aforesaid admission made before this court, while considering the claim of the petitioner in pursuance to Ext.P3 judgment, the third respondent issued Ext.P4 order rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The reason for passing an order of rejection is that there has not been any drought resulting in drying up of the coconut trees as claimed by the petitioner. In my view, it was impermissible for the third respondent to have arrived at such a conclusion for the reason that in the statement filed before this court in OP No.18541/99, the respondents themselves have admitted the fact that eight coconut trees were dried up. If that be so, the conclusion in Ext.P4 is directly contradictory to the stand taken before this court and for that reason, Ext.P4 order cannot be sustained. OP 8342/00 4 4. Ext.P4 is set aside and I direct to extend the benefit of Ext.P1 insurance policy subscribed by the petitioner in respect of 8 coconut trees that were found to have been dried up and destroyed. The benefit shall be extended as early as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The OP is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE sta OP 8342/00 5