Case: Prashant s/o Achyutrao Lomate &amp; anr Vs. The Union of India &amp; anr

4. By consent of parties all three proceedings were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.5. This Court has heard the parties at length in the petitions. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has advanced common submissions in all the three petitions.6. The petitioners in the said Public Interest Litigation No.91/2021 are the social workers from Osmanabad District. The Union of India had floated a scheme namely Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana-2020 (hereinafter referred to as PMFBY) applicable for three years. The State of Maharashtra is implementing the said scheme and accordingly issued Government Resolution dated 29.06.2020 through Department of Agriculture. The said scheme is to be run by the Central Government and State Government. It is the case of the petitioners that, the State Government has accepted the liability to implement the said scheme and had accordingly issued the said Government Resolution dated 29.06.2020.7. Clause 2 of the said Scheme provides for risk factor, Clause 3 provides the inclusion of the crops in oil seeds Soyabean, which is the subject matter of this Public Interest Litigation. Clause 7 of the said scheme provides for protected objects and Clause 7.5 specifically provides for post harvest losses. According to the petitioners, the said scheme is applicable to large number of agriculturists in the Osmanabad District. It was thus not possible for every agriculturists to execute Memorandum of Understanding with the Insurance Company. The State Government accordingly being a guardian of the agriculturists has selected the Insurance Company for implementation of the Insurance Scheme floated by the Central Government. The State Government accordingly selected respondent no.7 and executed Memorandum of Understanding on 27.07.2020 with the said Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited. It is the case of the petitioners that, under the said Memorandum of Understanding, it was made clear that the liabilities were accepted by the State Government on behalf of the agriculturists. The State Government was an agency in the said Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the agriculturists.8. There were heavy rainfall in the month of October 2020 in Osmanabad District and as a result thereof, at the time of harvesting of the crops, the crops were badly damaged. The harvested small hips in the fields decayed, decomposed and there were germination on the spot. Even after harvesting of the crops, the stored hips of the crops were putrefy and there was fungus. Even hips were flown away due to heavy rains and there was huge loss to the Soyabean Crops after post harvesting. The petitioners have annexed news items published in the different newspapers about heavy rainfall in Osmanabad and loss to Soyabean crops.

Reasoning:
53. 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. The State of Maharashtra was implementing the said scheme and had issued Government Resolution dated 29th June, 2020 through the department of Agriculture. Clause 7 of the said scheme provided for the protected object of the said scheme. Clause 7.5 provided for post harvest losses. The said scheme was applicable to large number of agriculturists in the district. The State Government had executed memorandum of understanding with the insurance company for implementation of the insurance scheme. The State Government was a nodal agency between the agriculturists and the insurance company.54. The petitioners/agriculturists had paid the insurance premium for such insurance coverage. The State Government had also contributed part of 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 crops were putrefied and there was fungus and hips were flown away due to heavy rains and there was huge loss to the Soyabean crop after post harvesting.55. A perusal of the record indicates that the Government had collected total data through Collector and prepared data of different crops and submitted to the Divisional Commissioner. The said report submitted by the Collector would indicate that there was more than 33% loss caused.56. A perusal of the record further indicates that the Commissioner of Agriculture, Maharashtra vide various letters had informed the different insurance companies and requested to consider post harvesting loss of Soyabean crop and to pay loss suffered by the petitioners. The State Government had also conducted the panchanama and had submitted the report to the Commissioner of Agriculture and District Collector.57. There were about 457216 affected agriculturists and the affected area was 208756.5 in all eight talukas of Osmanabad district causing loss of more than 33%. The insurance company did not dispute that there was a post harvesting loss for Soyabean crop in Kharip season 2020 due to heavy rain during the month of October 2020. The insurance company however, has though cleared claims of large number of agriculturists, though made after 72 hours of the incident, did not pay the claims of large number of agriculturists including these petitioners on the ground that there was no intimation or complaint made by the agriculturists within 72 hours and thus they were not entitled for such benefit under the said scheme.58. The insurance company also has not disputed that due to such heavy rain fall during the relevant period, the phone lines of the agriculturists were affected and it was not feasible to intimate the insurance company within a period of 72 hours. The said heavy rain fall continued for number of days.59. Be that as it may, the insurance company has not disputed that loss was suffered by more than 33% and accordingly State Government directed the insurance company to pay the claims of the agriculturists. The agriculturists had approached the State Government collectively in view of the fact that the State Government was nodal agency between the agriculturists and insurance company. All the agriculturists in the Osmanabad district were severely affected and thus there was no question of any individual claim.60. There was wide-spread calamity in the Osmanabad district due to such heavy rain fall and thus no intimation within the period of 72 hours was thus required to be issued by individual agriculturists, nor it was feasible. The agriculturists could not go to their respective farms. We are inclined to accept the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in writ petition and also in the public interest litigation that server of phone company was down. Considering these facts, the State Government had issued Government Resolution dated 09th November, 2020 and 07th January, 2021 for providing assistance to the agriculturists.63. Thus, it is an admitted position that, though in large number of cases intimation was not given by the agriculturists individually within 72 hours of the losses, the insurance company has paid those large number of agriculturists and waived their rights under the said scheme. On one hand, it is the case of the insurance company that the payments were made by the insurance company on the basis of data/material made available through the government agencies or collected during the survey at adjoining lands were considered along with weather report and payment of compensation was made in view of the special instructions from the Government to entertain all the intimations of losses irrespective of breach of timeline under the scheme. On the other hand in respect of these agriculturists who are the petitioners in the writ petition and large number of other agriculturists are denied payment on the ground of these agriculturists not having individually intimated the loss within 72 hours from the date of incident. In our view, the action on the part of the insurance company not to release the payment of compensation is discriminatory, arbitrary and without any reasonable basis. The impugned action on the part of the insurance company is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.64. Additional affidavit would also indicate that, the insurance company has accepted the data/material intimating such loss to the insurance company and based on such data, the insurance company has acted upon such data and/or instructions of the State Government and had paid large number of agriculturists towards losses suffered by them. Reliance placed on various clauses of the scheme to justify the rejection of claim of the petitioners is misplaced.65. The insurance company has not denied the submissions made by the petitioners in Writ Petition and in the Public Interest Litigation that the insurance premium collected by the insurance company from the State government for insuring claims of the agriculturists was much more than premium amount of Rs. 32.49 crores paid by the agriculturists, the State Government at Rs. 276.17 crores and the Central Government at Rs. 227.43 crores to insure the losses if any suffered by these agriculturists due to various eventualities covered under the insurance policies issued by the insurance companies. The insurance company has not disputed that, though the insurance company has received total premium of Rs. 436.10 crores, has distributed very meager amount of Rs. 84.68 crores to the selected agriculturists.66. Averments made in the affidavit in reply filed by the State Government on 02nd December, 2021 clearly indicates that, according to the Commissionerate of Agriculture, Pune to the Government of Maharashtra relating to the crops damaged as per the National Disaster Relief Fund (for short NDRF) that, due to heavy rains and floods occurred in the months of June to October, 2020 and in view of the area affected due to heavy rains and floods in the Osmanabad district was 259593 hector.67. The learned counsel for the insurance company could not dispute that under the said scheme provision had been made for the assessment of loss of individual farm level to crop losses due to occurrence of localized perils/calamities, hailstorm, landslide, inundation, cloud burst and natural fire due to lightening affecting part of a notified unit or a plots. There was agitation and protest by large number of agriculturists against the insurance company and the State government for not paying their legitimate demand to these petitioners and large number of other agriculturists, though the insurance company has paid selected agriculturists for having made such claim beyond 72 hours from the date of such loss suffered by each of the agriculturists.68. We are inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioners that, the insurance company is liable to grant claims of eligible agriculturists as per clause11.2E-6 of the G. R. dated 29.06.2020, as the loss caused was more than 25% of the notified area. The individual agriculturist was not required to intimate the insurance company of his loss within 72 hours from the date of such loss suffered by the agriculturist.69. There is no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the insurance company that the petitioners have claimed relief beyond the ambit and scope of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana effective from Kharip season 2020 as well as G. R. dated 29th June, 2020 issued by the State of Maharashtra. It is not case of the insurance company that the claims for losses made by the agriculturists were not covered by any events covered under the insurance policy issued by the insurance company. The provisions of the claim pressed in service by the insurance company for denying the claims of these agriculturists providing for intimation of individual loss within a period of 72 hours and consequences thereof would not apply to the facts of these cases on various grounds referred to aforesaid.70. In so far as judgment of this Court in case of Osmanabad DistrictsCentralCo-operativeBankVs.UnionofIndia (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the insurance company is concerned, the said judgment would not apply to the facts of this case. The facts before this Court in the said judgment were totally different. The provisions of the scheme considered by this Court in the said judgment were different.71. In so far as judgment of this Court in case of Osmanabad DistrictsCentralCo-operativeBankVs.UnionofIndia (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the insurance company is concerned, the Division Bench of this Court in the said judgment had considered National Agricultural Insurance Scheme. The petition was filed by a village level society engaged in providing loan facility to its members/agriculturists. In our view, the said judgment also would not assist the case of the insurance company. The said judgment would not apply even remotely to the facts of this case.72. In far as the judgment in case of LimbrajTulshiram TikleVs. StateofMaharashtra(supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the insurance company is concerned, provisions of the scheme considered by this Court in the said judgment were totally different. There was no case of payment of loss suffered by large number of agriculturists made by the insurance company selectively. The said judgment relied by the learned counsel for the insurance company, thus would not assist the case of the insurance company.73. In so far as order passed by the Supreme Court in case of AjitsinhMalubhaiGhummadVs.UnionofIndia(supra) is concerned, an order passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission was impugned before the Supreme Court. The clause providing for intimation in case of localized risk on individual basis was considered by the Supreme Court. The said clause was totally different. The appellant therein could not refer to any clause in the scheme that if yield is less due to insufficient rains, the deficiency would be covered under the scheme of insurance. In the facts of that case the Supreme Court did not interfere with the order passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. The said judgment would not assist the case of the insurance company and is clearly distinguishable on facts.74. The said Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana was being implemented in the State with an object to provide financial support to agriculturists suffering crop loss/damage arising out of unforeseen events, stabilizing the income of agriculturists to ensure their continuance in farming, ensuring flow of credit to the agricultural sector. The State Government has acknowledged the payment of premium paid by the agriculturists and that total 520175 Hector area had been covered under the said scheme. In para No. 7 of its affidavit it is admitted by the State Government that agriculturists who intimated their loss through agriculture department and even after 72 hours of natural calamity were also honoured and compensated. The insurance company was also instructed to determine the compensation based on the loss intimation received in offline mode through Agriculture Department after 72 hours of the calamity. A total of 72325 agriculturists were compensated by the insurance company by paying aggregate amount of Rs. 87.87 crores.75. It is case of the State Government that though agriculturists who had suffered loss due to localized 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, however, after considering these difficulties faced by the agriculturists, through the Commissioner of Agriculture issued letter dated 05th March, 2021 to the concerned insurance companies directed 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.76. In para No. 9 of the said affidavit it is clearly stated that considering huge amount saved at the insurance companys end, it is the stand of Department of Agriculture, Government of Maharashtra that agriculturists should be compensated by insurance companies based on crop damage survey report prepared as per NDRF norms. The procedure for survey of damage under NDRF survey to decide claims under said scheme is one and the same. The State Government decided that the agriculturists who had participated in the crop insurance scheme and were deprived of benefited of said scheme were treated as special case and shall be benefited of the said scheme on the basis of panchanama conducted by the Department of Revenue, Agriculture and Zilla Parishad for the area affected more than 33%.77. It is the stand of the State Government that agriculturists should be compensated by the insurance companies based on crop damage survey report prepared as per NDRF norms. We are inclined to accept the stand taken by the State Government in the affidavit in reply. The State Government has already issued specific directions in this regard vide letters dated 29th September, 2020, 14th October, 2020 and 04th March, 2021 to determine compensation for the localized calamity and post harvest loss and to take steps expeditiously to pay the compensation to who had not given crop loss intimation as per the scheme guidelines.78. The additional affidavit in reply filed by the insurance company clearly indicates that they have implemented the directions issued by the State Government partly and in respect of large number of selective claims and have taken unreasonable stand in respect of balance agriculturists. The insurance company cannot be allowed to discriminate two sets of agriculturists similarly situated.79. In so far as submission of the learned counsel for the insurance company that these petitions are not maintainable on the ground of alternate remedy not having been availed of by the petitioners is concerned, in our view there is no merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the insurance company. The insurance company has acted illegally and arbitrarily. The Insurance company has already paid large number of similarly situated agriculturists without those agriculturists availing any alternate remedy pursuant to the directions issued by the State Government or otherwise. Two of the petitioners have filed public interest litigation considering he huge loss and trauma suffered by large number of agriculturists of Osmanabad district. The alternate remedy in this situation would not be an efficatious alternate remedy.