An insurance company cannot deny a crop insurance claim on the grounds of yield thresholds or notice requirements without producing empirical evidence (e.g., crop cutting data), especially when parity is established by the compensation of an adjacent landholder under the same conditions.

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered on 03/02/2026)

Per Milind S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

1. This is an appeal challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalna (the ‘District Commission’ for short) in C.C.No.225/2022, whereby the District Commission directed the appellant to pay to respondent no.1 sum of Rs.15,643/-towards the crop insurance claim along with the interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint, within 45 days and also pay Rs.5,000/- for mental and physical harassment and cost of the proceedings.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that, respondent no.1 and 2 are the farmers. They are husband and wife. Respondent no.1 owns lands Gut no.523 and 549 whereas respondent no.2 owns Gut no.550 in Walsangavi Revenue Circle, Tq.Bhokardan, Dist.Jalna. They have sown Soyabin and Udid crops in their respective farms. For that purpose they took the crop insurance by paying premium amount of Rs.952/- and Rs.900/- respectively under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana ( ‘PMFBY’ for short). The crop insurance was valid for the agriculture Kharip season of 2021-22. The respondents claimed that, in July 2021 to November 2021 there was heavy and excessive rainfall . Therefore, there has been loss of every crop in the circle to numerous farmers. The Government machinery declared the ‘Aanewari’ less than 50 paisa for the period. The other farmers in that revenue circle received the crop insurance amount. Even wife of respondent no.1, who is respondent no.2 has also received sum of Rs.15,642/- for the loss of the crop. However, respondent no.1 not received the same. It is therefore, he approached the appellant but not considered favourably. As such, both of the respondents have filed above referred consumer complaint before the District Commission claiming that, there is total loss of the crop which was insured. The insured amount was Rs.47,600/- in case of respondent no.1 and Rs.45,000/- in case of respondent no.2. Since respondent no.2 has received Rs.15,643/- the balance amount of Rs.29,358/- was to be paid. Thus, respondents prayed the District Commission that, the appellant may kindly be directed to pay the insured sum of Rs.47,600/- to respondent no.1 and balance sum of Rs.29,358/- to respondent no.2 along with Rs.5,000/- for mental and physical harassment and as the costs of proceedings.

3. The appellant appeared before the District Commission and took the stand that (here we wish to mention that the copy of the written version before the District Commission not found on record but that we can gathered from the impugned judgment), there was a particular procedure prescribed for processing the claims of the farmers under the PMFBY. According to it, if at the end of agriculture season actual yield of the insured crop per hector in any insured area is found to be less than threshold yield then the insurance claim payable shall be paid as per the following formula.

X Sum insured

4. In the present matter, as per the data of State Government the actual yield for the insured notified crop is greater than the threshold yield , hence no compensation for loss to the crop failed due. The eye estimate of the loss i.e. Aanewari is not desirable. Secondly, as per the operational guidelines whatever loss may cause to the insured farmer ought to be communicated within 72 hours in case of localised calamitie