Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 24421
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SHAJI P.CHALY, J
NENMENI NELLULPADAKA PADASEKHARA SAMITHI – Appellant
Versus
AGRICULTURAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIA LTD. – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 26044 OF 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.T.A.SHAJI, SRI.M.A.ASIF, SRI.P.R.BANERJI, SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH, SMT.K.P.SHEEBA
For the Respondents: SRI.T.J.LAKSHMANAN IYER, SRI.MANU.S., SRI.JOBY JOSEPH
Insurance claims must adhere to scheme-defined triggers for payout eligibility, with no justification for payments beyond set parameters.
Headnote:(A) Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme, Rabi 2012-13 - The petitioner claimed full benefits for paddy crop insurance due to weather damage, demanding intervention over partial payments made by the insurer - The court upheld the procedural adherence of the insurer per scheme terms. (Paras 3, 5, 8, and 9)
(B) Agricultural Insurance - The court emphasized limits on claims as dictated by insurance policy terms, reinforcing that compensation must correspond to defined triggers of adverse weather - Petitioner's failure to substantiate claims led to dismissal of writ. (Paras 6, 7, and 9)
Facts of the case:
The case examines impacts of crop insurance scheme amidst claims of inadequate payout due to weather disruptions faced by paddy farmers in Palakkad District.
Findings of Court:
The scheme's operational framework and previous payments follow established guidelines, indicating no mismanagement or legal fault in claims processing.
Issues: Evaluation of entitlement under the crop insurance scheme based on stipulated climatic conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: Compliance with the insurance scheme's specifications guides payouts, maintaining the state's obligation to adhere to scheme frameworks without arbitrary decisions.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claimant sought full benefits under the insurance scheme due to crop loss. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondent provided schema and requirements but limited payouts per policy rules. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court found procedural adherence justified no additional claims. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. final determination underscored limited claim eligibility based on adverse weather definitions. (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2022
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner – Nenmeni Nellupadaka Pradasekhara Samithi, a registered organization of paddy farmers in Palakkad District, seeking directions to the Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram - 1st respondent, to disburse the benefits due to the farmers in Palakkad District, who had taken insurance coverage to their crops under Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme , Raby 2012-13 season, conceived by the State Government.
2. According to the petitioner, as per G.O.(Rt.) No.2242/2012/AD dated 17.11.2012 & G.O.(Rt.) No.2499/2012/AD dated 31.12..2012, produced as Exhibits P1 & P2, the Government of Kerala along with Union Ministry of Agriculture, formulated a scheme with the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., as the implementing agency, in various districts including Palakkad District with an object of providing security coverage to the farmers, who are likely to be affected with climatic adversities; and 75% of the premium was paid by the State Government. It is contended by the petitioner that despite the fact that the entire crops of the farmers were destroyed due to adverse weather conditions ; in terms of the parameters laid down in the scheme, due benefits are not being disbursed to the farmers and a meager amount is offered; that the individual farmers cannot resort to legal remedies in the peculiar nature of the grievances and therefore, the action of the 1st respondent is highly arbitrary and illegal.
3. It is further submitted by the petitioner that though they have submitted Ext.P7 representation dated 19.9.2013 before the respondents 2 to 4, the same is not considered. Thereafter, petitioner has received an Ext-P8 reply from the 1st respondent justifying its action in the matter of settlement of insurance claim by partial payment of compensation to the farmers . It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of Exhibit P8 order and claiming full cover benefits of the insurance scheme from the 1st respondent, the writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
(i) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the original of Exhibit-P8;
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to disburse the full amount to farmers - the members of Samithi in Palakkad District towards the relief under the Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme , Raby 2012-13 season at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per acre forthwith;
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 2 to 4 to consider and pass orders on Exhibit-P7 on merits forthwith;
4. The 1st respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit explaining the requirements for securing the benefits of the policy, and the intricate aspects that are to be taken into account while processing any claim raised by the insured. The material portion of the counter affidavit relevant for the disposal of the writ petition, being technical aspects, and for better understanding are extracted; it reads as follows:
"4. It is respectfully submitted that the modus operandi of the Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS) is as follows:
In the beginning of each cropping season (in Kerala, generally, there are two seasons viz 1.Kharif Season from April to September and 2. Rabi Season from October to March) the Government of India communicates administrative approval for continuation of implementation of the WBCIS for that particular season to all the State Governments, Agriculture Insurance Company
