Bombay High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 24 November, 2025
Author: R.G. Avachat
Bench: R.G. Avachat
2025:BHC-AUG:32376-DB
W.P. No.11249/2022
:: 1 ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.11249 OF 2022 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.16984 OF 2022
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Having its Registered Office at :
Bajaj Allianz House, Air Port Road,
Yerwada, Pune - 411 006
Email ID : [email protected]
through its Authorised Representative
Anuja Vikas Joshi
Age 36 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
ABC Complex, 3rd Floor, Near Prozone Mall,
Aurangabad - 431 001 ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra
through Secretary, Department of
Agriculture, Cooperation &
Farmers Welfare, Ministry of
Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers
Welfare, Mantralaya, Mumbai
2) District Collector,
Central Administrative Building,
1st Floor, Hall No.65,
Aurangabad Road,
Osmanabad - 413 501
3) Commissioner of Agriculture
Dept. of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare,
Govt. of Maharashtra,
Central Building, Pune 411 001
W.P. No.11249/2022
:: 2 ::
4) Tahsildar, Pune City,
NH4, 76/10, Shukrawar Peth,
Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Shukrawar Peth, Pune
Maharashtra - 411 002
5) District Superintendent Agricultural
Officer, Central Administrative
Building, 1st Floor, Hall No.65,
Aurangabad Road,
Osmanabad - 413 501
(Copy to be served on Government
Pleader, High Court of Judicature
of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)
6) Union of India,
through Secretary,
Department of Agriculture, Cooperation
& Farmers Welfare, Ministry of
Agriculture & Farmers Welfare,
Government of India, Krushi Bhavan,
New Delghi - 110 001
7) Prashant s/o Achyutrao Lomte,
Age 35 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o Near Mahadev Temple,
Baba Nagar, Kalamb, Tq. Kalamb,
District Osmanabad ... RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. Soli Cooper, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Angad Kochhar, Mr.
Vedant Kashyap, Advocates i/b
Mr. Mohit R. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. P.S. Dighe,
Advocate & Mr. Sanjay S. Dudhane, /i/b
Mr. A.R. Kale, Addl.G.P. for respondent No.1 to 5 - State
Mr. S.S. Dewe, Advocate holding for
Mr. A.G. Talhar, D.S.G. for R.No.6
Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for R.No.7
.......
W.P. No.11249/2022
:: 3 ::
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10719 OF 2023 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.11249 OF 2022
Prashant s/o Achyutrao Lomate
Age 35 years, Occu. Agriculture/ social work
R/o Near Mahadev Mandir, Baba Nagar,
Kalamb, Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Osmanabad
Mobile No. 9881840723 ... APPLICANT
(Orig. Respdt.No.7)
VERSUS
1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Having its Registered Office at :
Bajaj Allianz House, Air Port Road,
Yerwada, Pune - 411 006
Email ID : [email protected]
through its Authorised Representative
Anuja Vikas Joshi
Age 36 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
ABC Complex, 3rd Floor, Near Prozone Mall,
Aurangabad - 431 001
2) The State of Maharashtra
through Secretary, Department of
Agriculture, Cooperation &
Farmers Welfare,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
3) District Collector,
Central Administrative Building,
1st Floor, Hall No.65,
Aurangabad Road,
Osmanabad - 413 501
4) Commissioner of Agriculture
Dept. of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare,
Govt. of Maharashtra,
Central Building, Pune 411 001
W.P. No.11249/2022
:: 4 ::
5) Tahsildar, Pune City,
NH4, 76/10, Shukrawar Peth,
Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Shukrawar Peth, Pune
Maharashtra - 411 002
6) District Superintendent Agricultural
Officer, Central Administrative
Building, 1st Floor, Hall No.65,
Aurangabad Road,
Osmanabad - 413 501
7) Union of India,
through Secretary,
Department of Agriculture, Cooperation
& Farmers Welfare, Ministry of
Agriculture & Farmers Welfare,
Government of India, Krushi Bhavan,
New Delghi - 110 001 ... RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. Rajdeep D. Raut, Advocate for applicant
Mr. Soli Cooper, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Angad Kochhar, Mr.
Vedant Kashyap, Advocates i/b
Mr. Mohit R. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.1
Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. P.S. Dighe,
Advocate & Mr. Sanjay S. Dudhane, i/b
Mr. A.R. Kale, Addl.G.P. for respondent No.2 to 6 - State
Mr. S.S. Deve, Advocate holding for
Mr. A.G. Talhar, D.S.G. for R.No.7
.......
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
Date of reserving judgment : 21st August, 2025
Date of written notes submitted by parties : 10 th September, 2025.
Date of pronouncing judgment : 24th November, 2025
W.P. No.11249/2022
:: 5 ::
JUDGMENT (PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J.) :
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, has been preferred for the following main reliefs :
"This Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass the following writs and
directions :
(a) Issuance of a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof,
setting aside and quashing the impugned directions issued
by respondents No.2 and 4 and annexed to the present
petition as Exhibits - A, B, C, D, E and F;
(b) Issuance of a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction to the respondents to disburse
compensation to eligible and affected farmers strictly in
accordance with applicable law, as per the comprehensive
and detailed assessment and analysis carried out by the
petitioner based on the available NDRF data and
communicated to the District Collector via letter of
28/10/2022.
(c) Issuance of a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, to the
respondents declaring that assessment of compensation to
be paid to eligible farmers must be only on the basis of the
total affected area and not the total insured area as
erroneously directed by the District Collector.
(d) Issuance of a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, restraining the
District Collector, Osmanabad and/or the other official
respondents from taking any coercive steps against the
petitioner in furtherance to the Revenue Receipt Certificate
dated 04/11/2022 annexed to the present petition as Exhibit
F, or otherwise.
(e) Issuance of a writ of mandamus, or any appropriate writ,
order or direction to the respondent No.1 to forthwith pay
:: 6 ::
the balance subsidy of Rs.134,11,91,938/- (Rupees One
Hundred Thirty Four Crores Eleven Lakhs Ninety One
Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Eight only) to the
petitioner with 12% p.a. interest accrued thereon."
FACTS :
2. The petitioner is an Insurance Company. The
respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra, while the
respondent No.2 to 5 are the officials of the respondent No.1.
The respondent No.6 is the Union of India. The respondent
No.7 was the petitioner in Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.)
No.91/2021. He has been made party respondent on his
intervention application.
3. The Prime Minister Fasal Beema Yojana (PMFBY)
was introduced in the State of Maharashtra. The respondent
State issued Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 29/6/2020
for its implementation for Kharif Season 2020. The Union of
India issued Revamp Operation Guidelines (ROG) in relation
to the PMFBY effective from Kharif Season 2020. The
petitioner Company was selected as the Insurance Company
for the purpose of implementing the PMFBY for the district of
Osmanabad for a period of three years commencing from
Kharif Season 2020. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
:: 7 ::
was executed between the petitioner Company and the
respondent State. The subject matter of the MoU and this
petition as well is post-harvest loss of Soyabean crop suffered
by agriculturists on account of heavy rains in October 2020.
Three petitions, two PILs and one Writ Petition were filed for
enforcement of the Insurance Contract (petitioner's liability) to
pay compensation to eligible farmers. This Court, vide its
common judgment and order dated 6/5/2022, disposed of
those petitions with certain directions. The petitioner Company
preferred Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) against the said
decision. It has, however, been unsuccessful therein.
4. Since the petitioner Company did not comply with
the directions given by this Court vide its order dated 6/5/2022,
the respondent No.2 issued the petitioner Company
communication directing it to pay the amount of compensation
as has been directed by this Court. The Tahsildar, on the
instructions of respondent No.2, issued Revenue Recovery
Certificates (RRCs) against the petitioner Company for
recovery of the amount of compensation, as arrears of land
revenue.
:: 8 ::
were to pay the petitioner premium of insurance coverage.
The insured farmers were also to pay their share of the
insurance premium on time. Both, the insured farmers and the
Union of India paid their respective shares. The respondent
State has, however, not paid its second installment, said to
have been amounting to Rs.134,11,91,938. It was expected to
make the payment within a time-frame, lest the amount of
premium was to carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date it
became payable to the date of its actual payment. The
petitioner Company has also prayed the same.
6. This Court, vide its order dated 14/11/2022, granted
interim relief restraining the State authorities to execute RRCs.
The order was passed with a condition that the petitioner shall
deposit with this Court a sum of Rs.150 Crores. The order has
been complied with. In the meanwhile, Contempt Petitions
were filed against the petitioner Company for non-compliance
of the order of the Apex Court in Contempt Petitions. The
Contempt Petitions were disposed of with certain directions.
According to the petitioner Company, the issue of its liability
:: 9 ::
under the Insurance Contract stood concluded in view of the
decision of this Court, dated 6/5/2022 in those three Petitions
and the orders passed by the Apex Court in contempt
proceedings.
SUBMISSIONS :
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
Company made oral submissions and has placed on record
written notes of arguments. He has also relied on the notes of
submissions dated 14/7/2023 filed pursuant to the leave
granted by this Court on the said date. According to the
learned Senior Counsel, the directions issued by the State
official respondents were without jurisdiction, illegal and invalid
as well. The directions and the demands issued by the State
Government and its officials to pay the amount of
compensation on the basis of entire insured area were
erroneous and inconsistent with their stand in the earlier round
of litigation (PILs. and W.P.). Their stand was that the
petitioner Company was refusing to pay the compensation on
the basis of entire insured area but only making payment on
the basis of total affected area determined by the NDRF
:: 10 ::
Survey reports. The Apex Court, after detailed hearing,
dismissed the Contempt Petitions, discharging contempt
notices. Thus, the Apex Court did not consider the petitioner
Company to be in violation of its earlier orders and negated the
stand of the State and its officials. It has been conclusively
determined that the total affected area was 208756.5 Hectors
and the total amount payable by the petitioner Company was
@ Rs.18,000/- per Hector. The total amount payable by the
petitioner Company comes to Rs.375 Crores. The petitioner
has already paid Rs.300 Crores before the contempt
proceedings were disposed of. 50% of the amount deposited
by the petitioner Company pursuant to this Court's order dated
14/11/2022 was directed to be appropriated towards payment
of compensation to eligible farmers. The said order has also
been complied with.
8. The petitioner has also urged in this petition for
payment of the balance amount of Rs.75 Crores, in deposit
with this Court along with interest accrued thereon.
9. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the stand
:: 11 ::
of the respondent State as was depicted in its counter affidavit
in one of the Contempt Petitions was that the petitioner
Company had not complied with the common judgment and
order dated 6/5/2022 of this Court. The petitioner Company
ought to be directed to disburse compensation claims to the
remaining agriculturists for their entire insured area. Based on
area approach methodology, total amount of compensation
was Rs.545.89 Crores. All these contentions have not been
accepted by the Apex Court. The contentions in the affidavit
dated 13/12/2022 filed by the official respondents were
substantially identical to the affidavit dated 19/3/2023 filed by
them in Contempt Petitions. They were, therefore, estopped
from urging the same contentions as urged by them before the
Apex Court. According to learned Senior Counsel, the
principle of estoppel by record (res judicata) would be
applicable with its full force. The learned Senior Counsel relied
on the following authorities to buttress his submissions as
regards principle of res judicata (estoppel by record).
11. The petitioner respectfully submits that the
adjudication of the said disputed issues by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, which were raised based on the
submissions advanced by the State Government as
:: 12 ::
referred to above, operates as res judicata as between
the parties to the present writ petition and cannot be
reagitated before this Hon'ble Court in view of the
settled legal principles laid down herein below :
(i) Findings made in contempt proceedings attain
finality and operate as res judicata (Neelamega
Bhatta Charyar Vs. Arulmighu Devenatha Swamy
Temple Thiruvendhipuram, Judgment dated
12/04/2013 in S.A.. No.702 of 2000 (para 16) -
Annexure-A).
(ii) Once an issue is decided on merits in contempt
proceedings, it cannot be re-opened in any subsequent
suit or proceeding (Smt. Ranjeet Kour Vs. State of J.
& K., Judgment dated 02/12/2023 in CFA
No.05/2019 (para 23) - Annexure B and Sanjay G.
Khemuka (Dr.) Vs. State of Maharashtra 2004 SCC
OnLine Bom 204 (para 40) - Annexure-C).
(iii) Principles of res judicata applies with equal
force on all questions which are expressly decided and
also the questions which must be deemed to have been
decided by necessary implication [Sanjay G.
Khemuka (Dr.) Vs. state of Maharashtra 2004 SCC
onLine Bom (para 40) (supra)]
(iv) A relief claimed but not granted must be deemed
to have been denied and it shall not be open for the
parties to such proceedings to reagitate or reopen the
said issue in another proceedings [Sanjay G.
Khemuka (Dr.) Vs. state of Maharashtra 2004 SCC
onLine Bom (para 48) (supra)]
(v) the principles of res judicata are applicable in
different stages of the same proceeding. [Sulthan Said
Ibrahim Vs. Prakasan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1218
(para 54) - Annexure-D and Satyadhayan Ghosal
Vs. Deorajin Debi, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 15 (paras
7-8) Annexure-E]. In Satyadhan Ghosal, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para 7 that "the
:: 13 ::
principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving
a finality to judicial decisions. What it says is that
once a res is judicata, it shall not be adjudged again.
Primarily it applies as between past litigation and
future litigation. When a matter-whether on a question
of fact or on a question of law-has been decided
between two parties in one suit or proceeding and the
decision is final, either because no appeal was taken to
a higher court or because the appeal was dismissed, or
no appeal lies, neither party will be allowed in a future
suit or proceeding between the same parties to canvass
the matter again."
(vi) Any previous judgment on a matter in
controversy decided after full contest by a court
competent to decide it will operate as res judicata in a
subsequent proceeding [Gulabchand Chhotalal
Parikh Vs. State of Bombay AIR 1965 sc 1153 -
Annexure-F].
10. According to learned Senior Counsel, even the
impugned directions and issuance of RRCs could not subsist
or survive in view of grant of compensation payable by the
petitioner to have been determined and crystalised by the Apex
Court in the Contempt petitions. He would further submit that,
the State was barred and precluded from executing the RRCs
on any other extraneous plea or reason. In support of his
contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the
Apex Court in case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief
Election Commissioner 1978 (1) SCC 405. According to
:: 14 ::
learned Senior Counsel, even otherwise, the claim of the
respondent State fails on merit since it is contrary to Clauses
21.6.6.4.2, 21.6.6.4.3 and 21.6.6.4.4 read with the
Government Resolution dated 29/6/2020 (Clauses 10.5 and
25.C.17 at Pages 129 and 178). According to him, since the
insurance contract is in the nature of indeminification, liability
of Insurance Company could only be to the extent of actual
loss suffered. According to him, it is only the affected area that
has to be considered and not the insured area, otherwise the
principle of contract of insurance would stand negated.
According to him, the stand of the State Government was also
contrary to the operative directions in the common judgment
and order dated 6/5/2022, whereunder the petitioner Company
was directed to comply with the demand made in the letter
dated 5/3/2021 and pay the compensation in terms of clause
11.2-E-6 of the Government Resolution dated 20/6/2020.
According to him, the NDRF data was needed to be
considered for the purposes of identifying and compensating
the affected agriculturists. Eligible agriculturists were to be
identified based on the panchanama of the affected area.
According to him, clause No.11.2-E-2 to 11.2-E-5 needed to be
:: 15 ::
read before interpreting clause E-6 thereof. The learned
Senior Counsel relied on the affidavit dated 13/12/2022 and
document dated 18/10/2022, wherein names of agriculturists
with total area insured and area affected have been shown.
According to learned Senior Counsel, the said document
reflect the actual area affected in respect of which
compensation was to be determined. The same negates the
stand of the official respondents, that compensation to be paid
was for total insured area. According to him, if the stand of the
respondent State is accepted, it would lead to following
consequences.
"21. In conclusion, the stand of the official
respondents, if accepted, would lead to the
following consequences :
(i) The State Government would be guilty of
treating unequals as equals since agriculturists who
intimated within time or even belatedly were paid
compensation based on actual loss/ damage
assessment whereas the remaining agriculturists
would be paid compensation for their entire insured
area despite the absence of NDRF data showing any
post-harvest loss suffered by them.
(ii) Insurance is a contract of indemnity. Thus, an
insurance policy indemnifies loss against a specified
peril on the occurrence of specified peril and upon
consequential damage. On the contrary, the stand of
the official respondents would require payment of
:: 16 ::
compensation merely on account of occurrence of
the insured peril which if accepted would amount to
a contract of wager that is illegal under the Indian
Contract Act, 1872.
(iii) The State Government would be able to
subvert the essential principles of payment of
insurance compensation under the PMFBY Scheme,
which is that affected agriculturists should be paid
compensation for the actual loss suffered by them.
(iv) The State Government would be able to
circumvent the binding and conclusive adjudication
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue of
payment of compensation to the affected
agriculturists."
RRCs :
11. The learned Senior Counsel first took us through
the definition of the term, "land revenue" given in Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code, 1966. Then he referred to the terms, "to
hold land" or "the land holder" or "holder of land". In short,
according to learned Senior Counsel, the amount allegedly
payable by the petitioner towards compensation was neither
land revenue nor was on account of anything payable in
relation to an agricultural land or on account of interest therein.
Section 168 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966
was also relied on. According to learned Senior Counsel, the
MoU does not contain a clause authorizing recovery of
:: 17 ::
outstanding amount of compensation by issuance of RRC.
According to learned Senior Counsel, the authorities relied on
by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent State were
quite distinguishable on facts. He has dwelt at length to
distinguish those authorities. We do not propose to dilate
much on this issue since we are at one with the submissions
advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in
this regard.
12. According to learned Senior Counsel, no insurer
could assume any risk unless premium was paid to him.
Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 was referred to in
this regard in addition to the judgment of the Gujarat High
Court in case of Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine Guj 1486.
According to him, payment of subsidy/ second installment of
the premium was a sine qua non for disbursement of the
amount of compensation. Certain clauses of the G.R. and
ROGs were adverted to in this regard. Our attention was also
adverted to a clause regarding payment of 12% interest in
case of delay in payment of subsidy beyond three months of
:: 18 ::
the due date. Communications made by the petitioner
Company, asking for payment of the outstanding insurance
premium were also adverted to.
With all the aforesaid submissions, the learned
Senior Counsel urged for allowing the Writ Petition in toto.
13. Learned Senior Counsel representing the
respondent State too made oral submissions and placed on
record a summary thereof. According to him, the issue
involved in this Writ Petition regarding quantum of amount of
compensation stood concluded vide judgment and order dated
6/5/2022 passed by this Court. The observations in paras
No.55, 59, 64, 69, 75, 79 and the operative order have all been
reproduced in his written submissions. According to him,
reference to NDRF norms in the earlier round of litigation was
in the nature of considering the percentage of loss to the crops
during Kharif Season 2020. The NDRF data was the basis for
concluding that, there was loss of more than 33% and
therefore, considering the crop insurance scheme, the
requirement was of loss more than 25%. Therefore, it is only
in these circumstances, the said NDRF data was referred to
:: 19 ::
before this Court and it has nothing to do with the area. The
petitioner Insurance Company itself has considered and
granted full claims/ compensation to the agriculturists who had
given intimations within 72 hours. The Insurance Company
paid the claim amount for total insured area of each
agriculturist as per the data provided by them. Therefore, the
Insurance Company is now estopped from contending that, it
will consider the claims of the insured agriculturists only to the
extent of 2 Hector as per the NDRF Norms. The petitioner
Insurance Company is subsequently in order to disobey the
directions issued by this Court in PIL No.91/2021 is trying to
misread and misinterpret the reference of NDRF Norms in the
judgment after dismissal of their SLPs.
In view of the fact that, the petitioner Insurance
Company has granted compensation for total insured area to
initial 64953 agriculturists for total 65746.70 Hectors of land,
the remaining agriculturists are also entitled to receive
compensation for total insured area. Therefore, the contention
now tried to be raised that, the remaining agriculturists as
directed by this Court by judgment and order dated 6/5/2022
:: 20 ::
will not be paid for the whole insured area of each individual
agriculturist cannot be accepted. It amounts to disobeying the
directions issued by this Court.
14. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the
contentions made on behalf of the petitioner Company as
regards the issue to have been concluded by order dated
19/5/2023, passed by the Apex Court, is misconceived. Our
attention was adverted to the order passed by the Apex Court
in the Contempt Petition, whereunder the balance amount in
deposit with this Court is to be dealt with in terms of decision to
be given in the present Writ Petition. Meaning thereby, the
order passed in the Contempt Petition kept the issue open for
decision in the present petition. The written notes of
arguments contain the summary with regard to the claims paid
and yet to be paid by the petitioner Company. It reads thus :
Sr. Item Farmers Area in Total balance
No. hector amount to be
deposited in
Crores
1. Total amount required as per 333412 285847.06 514.12
post-harvest claim (Area X
Rs.18000/- ha.) as per order
of Hon'ble Court
a As per order of Hon'ble 201.34 Pg. 912 -: Total area
Supreme Court dated SLP Order insured
29/9/2022 in Special Leave 3,51,593.76
Petition 10391/22. The Hector
:: 21 ::
amount received by District
Collector as on dated
19/10/2022
b As per order of Hon'ble 12.42 -: Already paid
Supreme Court dated Pg. 998 : insured area
14/11/2022 in Special Leave Company letter 65,746.70
Petition 10391/22. The 28/10/2022 Hector
amount received by District
Collector as on dated
30/11/2022
c As per order of Hon'ble 75.00 -: Remaining
Supreme Court dated Pg. 1212 area to be paid
19/5/2023 in Contempt SC order 2,85,847.06
Petition 682/22 in Special Hector
Leave Petition 10391/22. The
amount received by District
Collector as on dated
31/7/2023
d The total amount received 288.77
from insurance company after Pg.1275
the order of Hon'ble Supreme Gov. reply
Court (a+b+c) dated
19/5/2023
e Balance amount yet to be paid 225.75
15. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the State
being the implementing authority, has every right to recover the
amount of compensation as land revenue as it gets covered by
the definition of the land revenue. He relied on the following
authorities in justification of issuance of RRCs.
1) The Thane Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner
of Sales Tax & ors. [2006 (6) BOM.C.R. 186]
2) M/s R.S. Rekchand Mohota Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.
Vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1997 SC 2591]
3) The State of Bombay Vs. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha [AIR
1960 SC 610]
4) P. Kasilingam & ors. Vs. P.S.G. College of Technology & ors.
:: 22 ::
[AIR 1995 SC 1395]
5) Oswal Fats and Oils Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner
(Administration) Bareilly division, Bareilly & ors. [2010 (4)
SCC 728]
6) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Inderjit Kaur & ors. [AIR 1998
SC 588]
16. According to learned Senior Counsel, in a meeting
dated 17/12/2021 of State Level Coordination Committee, it
was resolved that, remaining premium subsidy would not be
released to the Insurance Company until the issue was
resolved. The said meeting was attended by the representative
of the petitioner Company. The said resolution has not been
challenged till date. The petitioner Company would, therefore,
be estopped from raising the said issue in the present petition.
According to him, in any case, the petitioner Company could
not absolve itself of it's liability in view of directions issued in
the earlier round of litigation in PIL No.91/2021. He, therefore,
urged for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
17. The learned counsel for respondent No.7 (original
petitioner in PIL No.91/2021) would submit that, the issue
regarding quantum of compensation stood concluded vide
:: 23 ::
judgment and order dated 6/5/2022, passed in PIL
No.91/2021. The SLP preferred against the said decision was
dismissed. The State authorities took steps for execution of
the said order. The present Writ Petition was, therefore, not
maintainable, which is basically in the nature of review. The
learned counsel urged for directing the petitioner Company to
pay the amount of compensation with interest thereon.
18. We have considered the submissions advanced.
Perused the documents relied on. PMFGY was introduced in
the State. The State Government took steps for its
implementation. MoU was entered into between the petitioner
Company and the respondent State, in this regard. The
petitioner Company undertook to compensate farmers who
have insured their lands against post-harvest loss or damage
likely to be suffered by them to Soyabean crop on account of
downpour or other natural calamities. There were heavy rains
in October 2020, causing severe loss/ damage to agricultural
produce including Soyabean. The subject matter of this
petition is a post-harvest loss of Soyabean crop harvested and
gathered by the farmers on their respective lands. For
:: 24 ::
enforcement of the petitioner Company's liability under the
MoU, two PILs and one Writ Petition were filed. This Court, by
its judgment and order dated 6/5/2022, disposed of those
petitions with a common order, which reads thus :
A. In P.I.L.No.91 of 2021 respondent No. 7 and in
P.I.L.No.64 of 2021 the respondent No. 6 are directed
to sanction and grant compensation/claim for post
harvest loss caused to the soyabean crop in Kharip
season 2020 to the remaining 357287 agriculturists in
Osmanabad district. If the said amount is not paid by
the insurance company within a period of six (06)
weeks from today, the State Government is directed to
pay such claim for compensation for post harvest loss
caused to the Soyabean crop in Kharip season 2020 to
remaining 357287 agriculturists of Osmanabad district
within a period of six (06) weeks thereafter. The
insurance company is further directed to comply with
the directions of the State Government issued by its
letter dated 05th March, 2021.
B. In Writ Petition No.6859 of 2021, the
respondent No. 6/insurance company is directed to
grant and disburse the crop insurance claims of the
petitioners and all other entire eligible agriculturists in
Osmanabad district as provided in Clause 11.2E-6 of
the Government Resolution dated 29th June, 2020
within the time prescribed in the G. R. dated
29.06.2020.
C. P.I.L.No.91 of 2021, P.I.L.No. 64 of 2021 and
Writ Petition No.6859 of 2021 are allowed in
aforesaid terms."
19. The SLPs. preferred by the petitioner Company
:: 25 ::
against the aforesaid judgment and order stood dismissed with
the following order :
"The connected matters arising from the judgment and
order presently under challenge were dealt with by
order dated 5/9/2022, which order is reproduced
hereunder for facility.
"Mr. Vivek K. Tankha, learned Senior Advocate
has relied upon the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of Respondent No.2 in the instant Special
Leave Petitions. He has also invited our attention
to paragraphs 75 to 80 of the order passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court which is
presently under challenge.
Having considered the entirety of the matter, in
our view, the conclusions drawn by the High
Court do not call for any interference in our
jurisdiction under Article 136(1) of the
Constitution. The instant Special Leave Petition
is, therefore, dismissed.
The amount of Rupees Two hundred crores which
was deposited in the Registry of this Court along
with interest accrued thereon shall now be
remitted to the credit of District Treasury,
Osmanabad, Maharashtra and the disbursement
from and out of said sum as well as of any
additional sums shall be done strictly in
accordance with law under the supervision of the
District Collector.
The entire exercise shall be undertaken and
completed within three weeks from today."
Later, certain clarifications were issued vide order
dated 29/9/2022, in said matters.
:: 26 ::
The instant petition being fully covered by the order
issued by this Court on 5/9/2022 as clarified on
29/9/2022, are disposed of in identical terms.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed."
20. Since the petitioner Company did not comply with
the judgment and order dated 6/5/2022 passed by this Court in
those three Petitions, the State authorities took coercive steps
for recovery of the amount of compensation, by issuing RRC.
A short question that falls for consideration in this petition is as
to interpretation of the operative order dated 6/5/2022, passed
by this Court in those three Petitions. There can be no two
views over the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
relying on the host of the authorities (referred to hereinabove)
on the principle of res judicata. The respondents herein also
do not dispute the same. According to them, the issue raised
in this petition in fact stood concluded vide judgment and order
dated 6/5/2022 itself. We, therefore need not dilate on this
aspect (res judicata) of the matter.
21. Moreover, the order passed by the Apex Court in
the contempt proceedings (referred to hereinabove) has kept
the issue open for decision in the present Writ Petition. The
:: 27 ::
order reads thus :
"During the course of hearing, the petitioner had
contended that payments disturbed to the 72,000
admitted agriculturists was on the basis of the figure of
Rs.18,000/- per hectare. This was not disputed by
Bajaj. Upon consideration it appears that the total
figure would work out to be approximately Rs.375
Crores. It is evident that as of today, in compliance
with the impugned order, Bajaj has deposited a sum of
Rs.300 Crores. As stated earlier, the total affected area
is 208756.5 hectares. On a broad calculation of the
outgoing at Rs.18,000/- per hectare, the total figure is
Rs.375 Crores.
It is also a matter of record that Bajaj has deposited
Rs.150 Crores before the Aurangabad Bench, Bombay
High Court on 21/11/2022 (in terms of the order dated
14/11/2022 in W.P. No.11249/2022). In these
circumstances, it is hereby directed that the sum of
Rs.75 Crores may be duly appropriated and accounted
for as payment and consequentially disbursed to the
eligible farmers by the respondent State of
Maharashtra from the amount deposited in W.P.
No.11249/2022. The balance of Rs.75 Crores shall be
retained in the Registry of the High Court awaiting
final appropriation in terms of the order to be made in
the writ petition, on its merits."
22. We are conscious of the fact and legal position
that, contract of insurance is in the nature of indemnification.
Liability of insurer would only be in case of loss or damage
suffered by the insured/ beneficiary under the contract of
insurance. In the case in hand, although it was a contract
:: 28 ::
between the petitioner and the State of Maharashtra, the
insured were agriculturists in Osmanabad district. Admittedly,
those agriculturists paid their contribution of insurance
premium.
23. It is true, in the affidavit-in-reply filed in the
aforementioned three Petitions and the oral submissions made
on behalf of the respondent State therein, it was specifically
stated/ admitted that there were total 457216 affected
agriculturists and the affected area was 208756 Hectors.
There was loss of more than 33%. It is true that the factual
observations made in the judgment or order are presumed to
be correct, unless shown otherwise. It is also true that, said
statement amounts to an judicial admission. Such admissions
stand on higher footing. The admissions are, however, not
conclusive proof. An admission can be explained or proved to
be wrong. It can also be successfully withdrawn. The fact,
however, is that, in view of the operative order passed by this
Court in aforesaid three Writ Petitions on 6/5/2022, the
evidence and pleadings therein stood merged therein.
Admittedly, the petitioner Company preferred SLPs. against
:: 29 ::
the said judgment and order. The SLP stood dismissed. As
such, the order dated 6/5/2022 attained finality. Relevant
clauses of the Government Resolution dated 29/6/2020 need
to be adverted to. Clause No.10.5 thereof speaks of
determining post-harvest compensation. It reads as under :
"10.5) Determining post-harvest compensation.
Compensation will be given on individual level
in case of damage from hailstorm, cyclone, hurricane
and unseasonal rains up to a maximum of 2 weeks
(14 days) from harvest only for the notified crops
harvested in the notified area and spread for drying.
Under this provision, unseasonal rainfall means that
the risk is applicable only if the district receives more
than 20% of the average rainfall of that month's long-
term rainfall and the damage found in the
panchanama on an individual level."
24. While clause 11.2-E is very much relevant in this
case, which reads thus :
"E) Determination of loss and submission of
report :
1) Within 48 hours from the date of receipt of
information by the insurance company, a supervisor
should be appointed according to the prescribed
experience and educational qualification criteria to
determine the assessment of loss. It requires a
diploma in any subject and two years experience or
a degree in agriculture and allied subjects and one
year experience.
:: 30 ::
2) Survey of crop loss will be done through joint
committee which will include supervisor of
insurance company, agriculture officer at taluka
level and concerned farmers.
3) Damage report should be prepared within next
10 days.
4) Compensation should be paid within 15 days
after receipt of the loss report (subject to the
condition that the insurance premium has been paid).
5) For post-harvest risk, if the affected area of
the notified crop is more than25% of the total sown
area, then all eligible farmers in the notified area
will be eligible for post-harvest compensation. The
amount of loss will be decided by the insurance
company on the basis of the sample survey
conducted by the joint committee.
6) For local disaster risk, if the affected area is
up to 25% of the notified insurance area, then at
individual level and more than 25%, then eligible
farmers in the notified area (participating in the
insurance scheme and giving advance notified of
the loss of pigs) will be liable for compensation.
Marathi version reads thus :
६) स्थानिक आपत्तीच्या जोखिमीकरिता, जर बाधित क्षेत्र हे अधिसूचित
विमा क्षेत्राच्या २५ टक्के पर्यंत असेल तर वैयक्तिक स्तरावर व २५ टक्के
पेक्षा जास्त असेल तर अधिसूचित क्षेत्रातील पात्र शेतकऱ्यांना (विमा
योजनेत सहभागी झालेले व पिकाचे नुकसान विहित वेळेत पूर्व सूचना
दिलेले) नुकसान भरपाईस पात्र ठरेल.
7) Within 15 days after receipt of the loss report,
the insurance company will pay the allowable
compensation.
8) If the compensation determined on the basis
of average yield received at the end of the season
:: 31 ::
(based on crop harvesting experiment) is more than
the compensation received under post-harvest
compensation, the difference in the compensation
will be paid to the farmers. However, if the post-
harvest compensation is higher, the difference will
not be recovered from the farmers.
25. Admittedly, the affected area of the notified crop
was more than 25%. The petitioner Company, in its written
submissions, relied on the very clause with a rider that clause
11.2.E-2 to 11.2.E-5 thereof reveal that post-harvest
compensation would be payable to the eligible agriculturists
who have suffered loss or damage and not all insured
agriculturists. It is also true that, in Exh.R-1 (dated
18/10/2022), name of agriculturists with total insured area with
total affected area has been shown. It is also true that, in
some of the documents, the affected area is appearing lesser
than the insured area. The petitioner Company, appears to be
justified in contending that its liability is restricted only to the
extent of actual loss suffered, subject to the maximum of
Rs.18,000/- per Hector.
26. The issue, however, stood concluded in view of the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid
:: 32 ::
three Writ Petitions. The operative orders direct the petitioner
Insurance Company to grant and disburse the crop insurance
claim of the petitioners therein and all other entire eligible
agriculturists in Osmanabad district, as provided in clause
11.2E-6 of the Government Resolution dated 29/6/2020. The
said clause has already been referred hereinabove. As per the
said clause, if the affected area is more than 25%, then all the
eligible farmers in the notified area will be entitled to receive
compensation. The SLPs. preferred against the judgment and
order in the aforesaid three Writ Petitions have been
dismissed. As such, the order directing the petitioner
Insurance Company to pay the compensation in terms of the
aforesaid clause (6) attained finality.
27. The Division Bench, while deciding the Petitions,
observed in its judgment:-
"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.
........
:: 33 ::
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.
.......
64. 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 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.
:: 34 ::
.......
69. We are inclined to accept the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that, the insurance company is liable to grant
claims of eligible agriculturists as per clause
11.2E-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.
.......
75. 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.
.......
:: 35 ::
79. 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."
28. It is true that, in the contempt proceedings, the
Apex Court calculated the amount of compensation
considering the quantified affected area. It has, however, kept
the issue open for decision in the present Writ Petition. It,
therefore, could not be said that the order passed by the Apex
Court in the contempt proceedings gave finality to the issue
involved. In our view, the principle of res judicata will come in
the way of the petitioner Insurance Company, although in the
earlier Writ Petition the respondent State authorities stated on
affidavit the actual affected area to have been lesser than the
one for which the petitioner Insurance Company is sought to
be directed to pay compensation. Admittedly, it was of
compensation to be paid for post-harvest loss of the Soyabean
crop gathered/ stored on the respective lands. It is reiterated,
the affected area was admittedly more than 33%. By virtue of
:: 36 ::
clause (6) referred to hereinabove, no actual loss was,
therefore, expected to be assessed/ surveyed. Each and
every farmer insured under the Scheme for the loss of
Soyabean crop was entitled to receive compensation
amounting to Rs.18,000/-. The respondent authorities,
therefore, rightly calculated the amount as Rs.18,000/-
multiplied by the number of farmers affected. We are
conscious of the legal position that in case of contract of
insurance, it being in the nature of indeminification, liability of
insurance company is necessary to the extent of actual loss
suffered. The fact is, however, the petitioner Insurance
Company itself, in view of the terms of Memorandum of
Understanding, agreed to pay the amount of compensation
without going for assessment thereof in case the affected area
is more than 33%. Even though the State authorities had
come with a case in the earlier Writ Petitions that loss was to
be assessed in terms of NDRF norms, the issue stood
concluded in view of the decision of this Court in PIL
No.91/2021, the same could not be reopened. The reason
behind the parties to have agreed upon to pay compensation
in terms of clause (6) is logical and rational as well when due
:: 37 ::
to heavy rains, harvested Soyabean crop gets damaged, it
would be impossible, (at least difficult) to quantify the loss
suffered. Be that as it may, when the petitioner Insurance
Company agreed to pay the insured farmers a sum of
Rs.18,000/- without there being assessment of actual loss, and
the issue to have been concluded, the petitioner Insurance
Company could not be heard to say that its liability would be
restricted to the actual affected area. More so, when it has
already paid the farmers, who gave intimation within 72 hours,
compensation @ Rs.18,000/- per hector without ascertain the
actual loss suffered.
29. The prayers (in common) in both the PIL
Nos.91/2021 and 64/2021, decided on 6/5/2022 are
reproduced below
(B) The insurance company and respondents may kindly
be directed to compensate or to pay the sum insured
to all the insured farmers of Osmanabad District for
their all the insured crops of Kharif Season 2020.
ISSUE OF REVENUE RECOVERY CERTIFICATES (RRCs)
30. Admittedly, the respondent No.4 Tahsildar, on the
directions of the respondent No.2 Collector, issued RRCs
:: 38 ::
against the petitioner Insurance Company. Those certificates
have been issued for recovery of the amount payable under
the contract of insurance. We do not propose to dwell at
length on this issue since admittedly, the amount sought to be
recovered was neither a land revenue, nor an amount payable
to the State Government in relation to the agricultural land.
Moreover, there is no statutory provision nor a term in a
contract of insurance to recover such amount by issue of
RRCs. In our view, addressing the said issue with reference to
the relevant provisions of MLRC etc. would be nothing short of
a show off on our part. More so, when the Division Bench of
this Court, after this judgment was reserved, has decided the
same issue between the same parties (petitioner Insurance
Company and the respondent State, in Writ Petition
No.11973/2022), that the amount payable under the contract of
insurance could not be recovered by taking recourse to
Section 162 of the MLRC. We have perused the said
judgment, and are in respectful agreement therewith. In our
view, therefore, the action of the State authorities in issuance
of RRCs is illegal and unsustainable. To this extent, the Writ
Petition deserves to be allowed.
:: 39 ::
State Government's liability to pay the outstanding
amount of premium/ subsidy :
31. The respondent State does not dispute its liability
to pay second installment of the insurance premium. It is also
true that, in view of Section 64V-B of the Insurance Act, 1938,
it is statutorily provided that, no insurer can assume any risk
unless the premium is paid. It is also true that, in view of the
terms of Memorandum of Understanding, the respondent State
was supposed to pay the second installment well before the
petitioner Insurance Company assumes its risk.
32. In the meeting dated 17/12/2021 of the State Level
Coordination Committee, which was attended by a responsible
representative of the Insurance Company, it was resolved that,
the remaining premium/ subsidy would not be released to the
petitioner Insurance Company till the issue gets resolved. In
view of this resolution, the respondent State was justified in not
releasing the second installment of the subsidy/ premium in
faovur of the petitioner Insurance Company. Necessarily, the
petitioner would also not be entitled to claim 12% of interest on
the said amount on account of delay in payment thereof in
:: 40 ::
spite of there being a clause to pay interest @ 12% p.a.
33. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Writ
Petition is partly allowed in terms of the following order :
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The Revenue Recovery Certificates issued by the
respondent No.4 Tahsildar for recovery of the amount,
are hereby set aside.
(iii) The sum of Rs.75 Crores in deposit with this Court
along with interest accrued thereon be paid to the
respondent State for being paid to the eligible farmers.
(iv) We hope that, the amount of second installment of the
subsidy/ premium to be paid by the respondent State to
the petitioner Insurance Company, would be
appropriated towards payment of compensation to the
eligible agriculturists.
(v) The directions in the above clauses (ii) and (iii) to be
implemented after a period of two months from the date
of this order.
:: 41 ::
(vi) In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, Civil Application
No.16984/2022 stands disposed of.
(vii) Since no substantive Writ petition has been filed by the
applicant Prashant Achyutrao Lomate (in Civil
Application No.10719/2023), Civil Application
No.10719/2023 stands disposed of.
(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.)
FMPathan/-
