In its verdict, the Bombay High Court dismissed the Maharashtra government’s plea by saying .”The data provided by the State itself shows that in case of all the 42 circles of Osmanabad concerning the notified crop Soybean, there was no actual loss suffered. This was because the actual yield in all the 42 circles of the Osmanabad was found to be more than threshold yield. Therefore, this Court is unable to agree with the State that the petitioner – insurance company was being rapacious while denying the claims raised by the State on behalf of the farmers,”
Mumbai: In a major relief for Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, the Bombay High Court on Sept 12 has quashed the Maharashtra Government’s petition claiming Rs 374 crore from the Pune based insurer.
The Maharashtra government had sued BAGIC for not playing full claims of farmers in Osmanabad(now known as Dharashiv) for the loss of their soybean crops due to ‘unseasonal rains’ under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY).
Earlier, BAGIC and the Maharashtra Government had signed an MOU for implementing PMFBY in the state. Afterwards, BAGIC had won the bid for Osmanabad District for a period of three years, commencing with the Kharif season of 2020. The period between September and October 2021 had witnessed excessive rainfall in the district for which BAGIC paid Rs 374.61 crore to farmers.
However, the Maharashtra government claimed that BAGIC only paid 50 per cent of the insurance claims and that it was supposed to pay the equivalent amount to the farmers in the district.
BAGIC had disputed that it has already paid Rs 374.61 crores to the farmers for loss of their crops in all the 42 circles in Osmanabad district.
To execute its demand, the Maharashtra government had even frozen the accounts of the insurance company.
In its verdict, a division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Yanshivraj Khobragade of Bombay High Court dismissed the Maharashtra government’s plea by saying .”The data provided by the State itself shows that in case of all the 42 circles of Osmanabad concerning the notified crop Soybean, there was no actual loss suffered. This was because the actual yield in all the 42 circles of the Osmanabad was found to be more than threshold yield. Therefore, this Court is unable to agree with the State that the petitioner – insurance company was being rapacious while denying the claims raised by the State on behalf of the farmers.”
The Bombay HC in a detailed judgement noted that all payments under the MOU were made directly into the accounts of the individual farmers and that under the PMFBY, the State and the Central governments together paid the majority share of the premium towards the MoU i.e. the insurance contract, the beneficiaries were the farmers and not the State Government.
“Therefore, the said amount of money sought to be recovered by the State authorities, is not legally claimable by or on behalf of the State. On this score itself, the State, cannot claim that the alleged amount due from the petitioner – insurance company, can be said to be towards recovery of land revenue. The State can refer only to the MoU (the insurance contract). But, the said MOU also does not concern land. It concerns insurance of crops under the PMFBY. In any case, the MoU does not contain any clause that amount recoverable under the same, shall be treated as arrears of land revenue,” the bench said.
Further, the Bombay HC also dismissed the PIL by farmers supporting the Maha Govt orders for additional payout of Rs 374 crore.