Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs T.Saminathan on 17 October, 2024
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S. Sundar
WA.No.236/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
WA.No.236/2022 & CMP.No.1700/2022
The Managing Director,
Kumbakonam Central Cooperative Bank Ltd
No.2, TSR Big Street, Kumbakonam
Thanjavur District. ... Appellant / 2nd
Respondent
Vs.
1.T.Saminathan
2.Tmt.S.Bhuvaneswari
3.P.Gopu
4.K.Sekar
5.G.Pannerselvam
6.M.Arumugham
7.Tmt.A.Revathy
8.Tmt.T.Bharathy
9.N.Gunasekaran
10.S.Abdul Rahim
11.V.Gurumurthy
12.Tmt.G.Panchavarnam
13.M.Saminathan
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.No.236/2022
14.K.Senthilkumar
15.M.Madhankumar
16.P.Velmurugan
17.K.Gayathiri
18.S.Senthilkumar
19.Tmt.S.Meenakshi
20.M.Karunanithi
21.N.Pakkirisamy
22.M.Dhanapal
23.D.Balachandran
24.Tmt.G.Mythili
25.N.Senthilvelan
26.M.Dhakshinamurthy
27.V.Rajendran
28.A.Abdul Latheef
29.B.Abdul Salam
30.R.Muthuvel
31.R.Elankumaran
32.Tmt.E.Manonmani
33.E.Rubia
34.Tmt.V.Surya
35.Tmt.E.Udhaya
36.G.Rajkumar
37.J.Venkateswaran
38.Tmt.R.Premavathy
39.S.Ramesh KumarAPPAN40.T.Pakkirisamy
41.Tmt.P.Maharani
42.P.Balasubramanian
43.V.Selvaraj
44.G.Nagarajan
45.R.Sankar
46.Tmt.S.Geetha
47.A.Mohamed Basheer
48.R.Jagadeesan
49.S.Muthunathan
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.No.236/2022
50.K.Venakatasubramanian
51.K.Gandhi
52.P.Mariappan ... RR 1 to 52 / Writ
Petitioners
53.The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Nagapattinam Region, Nagapattinam District.
54.The Regional Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Ltd
No.770-A, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
55.The Secretary
2719, Thittacheri Primary Agricultural
Cooperative Society Ltd.,
Purakiramam 609 703,
Nagapattinam Taluk & District. ... RR 53 to 55 / RR
1,3&4 in WP
56.The Director of Agriculture,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. ... 56th Respondent
**R56 impleaded vide order dated
01.08.2024 in CMP.No.11036/2022
in WA.No.236/2022 & CMP.No.1700/2022
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 29.10.2021 in WP.No.20491/2021.
For Appellant : Dr.A.Thiyagarajan for
Mr.T.C.Harinath
For RR 1 to 52 : Mr.S.Kamadevan
For R53 : Mr.Prabhakaran Sundarajan
For R54 : Mr.S.R.Sundar
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.No.236/2022
For R55 : Mr.M.S.Palanisamy
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,]
(1)This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge
of this Court dated 29.10.2021 made in WP.No.20491/2021.
(2)The appellant in this appeal is the 2nd respondent in the writ petition filed
by respondents 1 to 52 herein for issuance of a writ of mandamus,
directing the 3rd respondent in the writ petition namely, the New India
Assurance Company Limited to disburse the exact and actual
compensation payable towards the crop insurance amount for the year
2017-18, Paddy-II, in respect of the Villages namely, Thittacheri,
Alathoor, Eravancheri, Seeathamangai, Kothamangalam and Kuthalam in
Nagapattinam Taluk and District under the ''PRADHAN MANTRI
FASAL BIMA YOJANA [PMFBY]'' Scheme.
(3)Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as
follows:
(4)Respondents 1 to 52 in the writ appeal who are the writ petitioners in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.20491/2021 are all members of Thittacheri Primary Agricultural
Cooperative Credit Society who is the 4th respondent in the writ petition.
All the writ petitioners have own agricultural lands at Thittacheri,
Alathoor, Eravancheri, Seeathamangai, Kothamangalam and Kuthalam
Villages of Nagapattinam Taluk and District.
(5)The Central Government introduced Crop Insurance Scheme in the name
of ''Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana'' [PMFBY] to help the farmers to
support sustainable production in agricultural sector by way of providing
financial support and to compensate farmers suffering loss or damage due
to unforeseen events. It is pertinent to mention that the Scheme is also
aimed to ensure the flow of credit to the agricultural sector to ensure full
security, crop diversification and to enhance growth and competitiveness
in the agricultural sector. The object behind the Insurance Scheme is to
protect the farmers from potential threats and risks on account of
unforeseen disasters.
(6)As per the Scheme, only those farmers who pay the premium under the
Scheme is eligible. It is the obligation of the financing Banks and the
Societies in which the farmers are members, to ensure and to debit the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
premium collected from the farmers within fifteen days from sanction /
renewal of KCC/Crop loan to provide the benefit under the Scheme. The
Society is acting as an Agency to ensure the enrolment of the eligible
members under the Scheme. The premium for the crop insurance is
deducted from the loans advanced to the members. Apart from members
who have availed crop loans, the Scheme also can be extended to other
farmers who are eligible to enroll to avail the benefit of crop insurance
Scheme by paying the premium as per the Scheme.
(7)During 2017-18, i.e., II Crop [Rabi], all the writ petitioners who are all
the members of the 55th respondent / Cooperative Society paid the
necessary premium and there is no issue that the premium collected from
the writ petitioners, were duly transferred to New India Assurance
Company Limited through the Bank. Due to unforeseen cyclone named
''Gaja'', all the farmers including the writ petitioners who have raised
paddy crop in the six villages stated earlier, have lost their crop. An
assessment team visited Nagapattinam District and assessed the actual
damage caused to the farmers including the writ petitioners to facilitate
farmers to get compensation from the Insurance Company as per the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
insurance Scheme for the actual damage/loss. The Assessment Team
visited each and every village and assessed the damages caused to crops
due to cyclone and the same was also uploaded in the web portal
maintained by the respondents. The name of the villages and the extent
of damages assessed are given in the following table:-
Sl.No. Name of Villate Damage assessed by the
Inspection Team
1 Thittacheri Village 51.35%
2 Alathoor Village 62.36%
3 Eravancheri Village 72.24%
4 Seeathamangai Village 91%
5 Kothamangalam Village 79%
6 Kuthalam Village 75%
(8)Major parts of Nagapattinam District were seriously affected and II Crop
during 2017-18 was completely damaged. Quite surprisingly it was
noticed later that, by mistake, instead of uploading the actual damages as
assessed by the Inspection Team in tune with the above table, damage at
8.23% was uploaded for all the above six villages. It is admitted that the
quantum of damages as uploaded was not correct and it is by mistake, the
actual damage assessed by the Inspection Team which was later verified
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and confirmed on field inspection, was not uploaded. Despite the
percentage of damages for the six villages was later found as a mistake
and human error during correspondence, and the appellant herein/2nd
respondent in the writ petition, immediately admitted the mistake and
informed the Insurance Company, the claim of the writ petitioners were
not fully settled. Since the percentage of damages for all the six villages
were wrongly uploaded as 8.23%, only a meagre amount was paid to
farmers. The respondents in the writ petition tried to make the other
responsible for the claim in stead of settling the compensation as per the
Scheme. Hence, the writ petitioners filed the above writ petition.
(9)A counter affidavit was filed by the New India Assurance Company / 3rd
respondent in the writ petition, extensively referring to the Operational
Guidelines of the Crop Insurance Scheme issued by the Ministry of
Agriculture and Farmers Welfare [MoA&FW], New Delhi. Even though
it is admitted that as per the Scheme, the farmers should not be deprived
of the benefit of the Scheme on account of any lapse on the part of any of
the authority as per the Guidelines, the 3rd respondent contended that it is
the responsibility of respondents 2 and 4 in the writ petition, namely, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Central Cooperative Bank and the Cooperative Society, to ensure that the
farmers are not deprived of any benefit under the Scheme due to any
error, omission or commission. It is contended that the Central
Cooperative Bank / 2nd respondent in the writ petition, alone is fully
responsible and liable for making good the loss suffered by the farmers in
terms of Clause XXIV of the Operational Guidelines of PMFBY. Since
the New India Assurance Company has settled the amount by determining
the damages at 8.23% as per the data provided by the 2 nd
respondent/Central Cooperative Bank, the Insurance Company took a
stand that it is not liable to indemnify the loss or damage as the farmers
were deprived of the benefit due to the fault of respondents 2 and 4 in the
writ petition who are the Central Cooperative Bank and the Cooperative
Society. In sum and substance, Clause XXIV of the Operational
Guidelines of PMFBY was relied upon as defence by the Insurance
Company.
(10)The other respondents in the writ petition have not filed any counter ;
but contended that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the
farmers as there is no issue regarding the actual damage that was assessed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by the Inspection Team and reported earlier as found in the table above
extracted.
(11)The learned Single Judge of this Court, relied upon Clause XXIV of the
Operational Guidelines of PMFBY and held that the 2nd respondent in the
writ petition / the appellant herein, namely, Kumbakonam Central
Cooperative Bank, had committed the mistake while uploading the
particulars of the writ petitioners in the web portal by bringing all of them
within Nagapattinam Village even though the writ petitioners have
suffered damages to the crops that were grown in six villages as per the
table. Stating that the mistake was committed only by the 2 nd respondent
in the writ petition, namely, the Kumbakonam Central Cooperative Bank,
the learned Judge held that the writ petitioners are entitled to receive the
entire loss suffered by them from the 2nd respondent/Bank.
(12)The relevant portions of the judgment, namely, paragraphs No.12 to 14
are extracted below:-
''12.The above discussion leads to the
inescapable conclusion that the second respondent
Kumbakonam Central Cooperate Bank has committed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
a mistake while uploading the particulars of the
petitioners in the portal by bringing all of them within
Nagapattinam Village and whereas the petitioners were
owning lands spread out to nearly six villages and
which has been referred supra. As a result of this
mistake committed by the second respondent, the
petitioners who are entitled to receive the
compensation as per the loss that has been ascertained
and mentioned supra, received only 8.23% less. The
petitioners are entitled to receive the entire loss
suffered by them based on the percentage fixed by the
Committee.
13. The second respondent cannot make the
petitioners wait endlessly for receiving the
compensation on the ground that steps are being taken
to discuss the issue with the third respondent insurance
company. This process has to be undertaken by the
second respondent independently with the third
respondent insurance company and that can never be a
ground to deprive the petitioners to receive the
compensation for the loss sustained by them due to the
natural disaster. The second respondent has to
necessarily own up for the mistake since the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent is also bound by the operational guidelines
under the PMFBY Scheme.
14. The upshot of the above discussion is that,
there should be a direction issued to the second
respondent to pay the compensation to the petitioners
in accordance with the loss ascertained by the
Committee and which has been extracted supra. The
second respondent is directed to settle the
compensation to all the petitioners and the farmers
similarly placed within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. While paying the
compensation, the second respondent shall adjust the
8.23% which has already been paid to the petitioners
and the balance amount shall be settled. The total
amount payable to the petitioners shall be ascertained
by the second respondent from the third respondent and
the third respondent shall furnish all the particulars to
the second respondent. Insofar as the discussion that is
taking place between the second respondent and the
third respondent, it shall be done independently
without getting in the way of the petitioners receiving
the compensation amount.''
(13)Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent / Kumbakonam Central
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cooperative Bank, preferred the above writ appeal mainly on the ground
that the Cooperative Society, namely, the 4th respondent in the writ
petition, is the competent authority to upload the details of the farmers
who had opted for the Scheme. While admitting that a sum of
Rs.7,96,987/- was collected as premium by the 4th respondent through the
appellant herein, it is contended by the appellant that the entire amount
was remitted by the appellant to the Insurance Company, namely the New
India Assurance Company /54th respondent herein and therefore, the
appellant is no way responsible for the error committed by the Thittacheri
Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society / 55th respondent herein
[4th respondent in the writ petition].
(14)Learned counsel for the appellant during the course of argument,
contended that it is either the Cooperative Society or the Insurance
Company who is responsible and the appellant being a Nodal Agency, has
no role in the collection of premium from the farmers or for the
disbursement of compensation paid by the Insurance Company. It is
pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Cooperative
Society/55th respondent herein, had wrongly entered the name of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
village and percentage of damage and this has resulted in non-payment of
the compensation payable as per the actual damage assessed by the
Inspection Team. Even in the grounds, it is admitted that 4% of the
premium collected from the farmers goes to the appellant Bank as well as
the Cooperative Society by way of service charge and therefore, it is
contended by the writ petitioners that all above of them are liable.
(15)This Court considered the object of Crop Insurance Scheme and the
provisions of the Operational Guidelines given by the Government under
the Central Government Scheme known as PMFBY.
(16)In the instant case, the facts are not in dispute. All the four respondents
in the writ petitions admitted that by mistake, the actual damage assessed
by the Inspection Team for the six villages was not properly uploaded and
during this job, the damage assessed in respect of one village at 8.23%
was wrongly recorded in respect of farmers in other six villages who have
suffered the actual damage between 51% and 91%. There is no dispute as
regards the actual damages suffered by the writ petitioners as per the
damage assessment done by the Team of officials which is the basis for
fixing the compensation as per the insurance Scheme.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(17)Clauses I to X of Operational Guidelines deal with the Objectives of
the Scheme, coverage of farmers, crops, risks and exclusions, premium
payable by the farmers, subsidy and collection of premium from farmers
etc. Clause XI deals with assessment of loss/shortfall in yield.
Procedure for settlement of claims to the farmers is given in Clause XVI.
Relevant clauses applicable for coverage of risks is given in Clause
XVII. Commission and Bank Charges is dealt with under Clause XIX.
Review of the Scheme and Monitoring of the Scheme are given in
Clauses XXI and XXII. Participation of Insurance Companies in
implementation of the Scheme is given under Clause XXIII. Role and
responsibilities of various Agencies is given under Clause XXIV. The
Crop Insurance Portal for administration of crop insurance program is
given under Clause XXV.
(18)Clause XVI of the Operational Guidelines reads as follows:-
XVI.PROCEDURE FOR SETTLEMENT OF
CLAIMS TO THE FARMERS:-
1. Upfront premium subsidy from Government of
India and concerned State/UT, should have been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
received for the season, by insurance company to
enable them to settle the claim.
2. In case of widespread calamity [end of season
claims], once yield data is received from State
Government as per the cut-off dates decided,
claims will be worked out as per Declarations /
proposals received from Banks / channel
partners / insurance intermediaries for each
notified area and crops and claims will be
approved by Competent Authority of insurance
company, i.e., implementing Agency [IA].
3. In case of farmers covered through Financial
Institution, claims shall be released only through
electronic transfer, followed by hard copy
containing claim particulars, to individual bank
branches/nodal banks, and bank branches/PACs
at grass root level, will credit into accounts of
individual farmers within a week of receipt of
funds from the Insurance Companies and shall
provide a certificate to the insurance companies
along with list of farmers benefited. Bank
Branch should also display particulars of
beneficiaries on notice board and also upload
the same on crop insurance portal.
4. In case of farmers covered on voluntary basis
through intermediaries, payable claims will
directly credited to the concerned bank accounts
of insured farmers and details of the claims may
also intimated to them. The list of beneficiaries
may also be uploaded on the crop insurance
portal immediately.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. In case of claims under prevented/failed sowing,
localized calamities, post-harvest losses ;
insurance company will process the claims after
assessment and shall release the claims as per
procedure given in the relevant sections above.
6. Insurance companies shall resolve all the
grievances of the insured farmers and other
stakeholders in the shortest possible time.
7. Disputed claims/sub-standard claims, if any will
be referred within three months of claim
disbursement through SLCCCI/State
Government to DAC&FW for consideration and
decision of DAC&FW in case of any
interpretation of provisions of scheme or
disputes will be binding on State Government /
Insurance Company / Banks and the farmers.
(19)As per clause XVI[2], in case of widespread calamity, once the yield
data is received from the State Government as per the cut-off dates
decided, the claims will be worked out as per the declarations/proposals
received from the Banks or channel partners or insurance intermediaries
for each notified area and crops and claims will be approved by the
competent authority of insurance company, ie., the Implementing Agency
under the Scheme.
(20)It is also stated that the Insurance Company shall resolve all the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
grievances of the insured farmers and other stakeholders in the shortest
possible time. Disputed claims or sub-standard claims if any, will be
referred within three months of claim disbursement through the State
Level Coordinate Committee of Crop Insurance [SLCCCI] or State
Government to Department of Agricultural Operation and Farmers
Welfare [DAC&FW] and decision of DAC&FW in case of any
interpretation of provisions of Scheme or disputes will be binding on all
the stakeholders namely, the State Government, Insurance Company,
Banks and Farmers.
(21)It is also stated in Clause XVII that Insurance Companies should have
received the premium for coverage either from Bank, channel partner,
insurance intermediary or directly. Any loss in transit due to the
negligence by these agencies or non remittance of premium by these
agencies, the concerned bank / intermediaries shall be liable for payment
of claims.
(22)Learned counsel for the appellant / 3rd respondent in the writ petition,
ignoring the object of the Scheme, tried to interpret the Operational
Guidelines to suit his submission that the Insurance Company cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
held liable in case of misreporting by Nodal Bank. He relied upon
Clauses XVII[1], XVII[2] and XVII[3] of Operational Guidelines, which
read as follows:-
XVII:Important Conditions / Clauses applicable for
coverage of Risks:
1. Insurance Companies should have received the
premium for coverage either from Bank, channel
partner, insurance intermediary or directly. Any
loss in transit due to negligence by these
agencies or non remittance of premium by these
agencies, the concerned bank / intermediaries
shall be liable for payment of claims.
2. In case of any substantial misreporting by nodal
bank/branch in case of compulsory farmers
coverage, the concerned Bank only shall be
liable for such misreporting.
3. Mere sanctioning/disbursement of crop loans
and submission of proposals / declarations and
remittance of premium by farmer/bank without
explicit intent to raise the crop, does not
constitute acceptance of risk by insurance
company.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(23)Learned counsel also relied upon Sub-clauses 4[i], 4[m], 5[e] and 5[f]
of Clause XXIV which read as follows:-
''XXIV:Role and Responsibilities of Various
Agencies:-
4.Financial Institutions/Banks:-
[i]The insurance company shall acknowledge all
the declarations submitted by the banks mentioning the
details of crop, area, sum insured etc. The Banks
should cross check with their records and aberrations,
if any, should be brought to the notice of the insurance
company immediately. If no response is received from
banks within 15 days, the details given in the
acknowledgement shall be considered final and no
changes would be accepted later on.
....
[m]Banks should ensure that cultivator may not
be deprived of any benefit under the Scheme due to
errors/omissions/commissions of the concerned
branch/PACs, and in case of such errors, the concerned
institutions shall only make good all such losses.
5.Designated Insurance Agents:-
[e]The designated insurance agents shall also
prepare the list of individual insured farmers with
requisite details like name, father's name, Bank
account number, village, categories – Small and
Marginal/SC/ST/Women, insured acreage, insured
crop[s], sum insured, premium collected, Government
subsidy etc., in soft copy and send the same to the
concerned insurance company within five days after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
cut-off date.
[f]The designated insurance agents should
ensure that insured farmers may not be deprived of any
benefit under the Scheme due to
errors/omissions/commissions of them , and if any, the
concerned agents/insurance company shall only make
good all such losses. Necessary administrative and
legal action may also be taken for lapses in service /
malpractices, if any, reported.''
(24)This Court finds that as per the Scheme, the farmers have paid their
premium to cover the risk and the payment was duly acknowledged by
the Insurance Company. The eligibility criteria has to be decided by the
Insurance Company based on the quantum of likely losses and the
disbursement of compensation should be based on joint survey by the
Insurance Company and the State Government officials. When loss
acquire due to localized perils like calamities, the maximum liability is
limited to proportionate to the sum insured of damaged crop area. All the
farmers who have paid the premium to the Insurance Company is eligible
for financial support under the risk cover policy. The damage intimation
should be given within 48 hours by the farmers either directly to the
Insurance Company or to the concerned Bank or to the Local Agricultural
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Department through the toll free number. The Bank which acts as Nodal
agency should verify the details like crop insured, sum insured, premium
debited and date of debit before sending the same to the Insurance
Company. It is only thereafter loss assessment is made by the loss
assessor appointed by the Insurance Company for assessment of losses
due to operation of localized risks in terms of Clause XV. It is in those
circumstances the actual damage suffered by the farmers is assessed by a
team appointed by the Insurance Company for assessment of losses.
Therefore, it is no wonder why the Insurance Company did not raise any
objection as to the assessment of loss by the special team during
inspection. Clause XVII of Operational Guidelines ensures prompt
receipt of insurance premium by the Insurance Company and the
Insurance Company cannot be held liable for any loss in transit due to
negligence of any other Agencies since the Scheme gives full protection
to the farmers who have paid their premium. In all such cases, the
compensation for the damage caused to the crop should only come from
the other Agencies if the insurance premium collected from the farmers is
not duly paid or accounted to the Insurance Company.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(25)Similarly, it is only in that context, sub-clause [2] of Clause XVII states
that the concerned Bank shall be liable for such misreporting. This
Clause cannot be understood to mean that any error in uploading the
actual damages caused, cannot be rectified as the error is due to
inadvertence or a clerical mistake. When the Scheme envisage a
contractual obligation on the Insurance Company to indemnify the
farmers for the loss or damage caused to their crop if the insurance
premium is duly paid for covering such specific risk, the same cannot be
fastened on anyone else merely because there is a clerical error or human
error in uploading the actual damages suffered by the farmers, which can
be ratified on confirmation of facts.
(26)Sub-clauses 4[i] and 4[m] of Clause XXIV does not deal with such error
or omission while uploading the actual percentage of damage. We are
unable to appreciate the contentions of Insurance Company on the
interpretation of the Operational Guidelines, to wriggle out of its
contractual obligations. This Court finds no justification for making the
Cooperative Society or the Cooperative Bank who are respondents 2 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4 in the writ petition to pay compensation for the damages when it is
admitted that the insurance premium was collected only by the 54th
respondent herein, namely the Insurance Company. The learned Single
Judge, however has not considered the relevant provisions of the
Operational Guidelines in a proper perspective having regard to the
admitted facts and the circumstances in this case.
(27)In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that the order
of the learned Single Judge impugned in this appeal is unsustainable.
(28)Accordingly, the writ appeal stands allowed and the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 29.10.2021 in WP.No.20491/2021 is set aside and the
writ petition stands allowed as prayed for.
(29)The New India Assurance Company Limited is directed to disburse the
exact and actual compensation payable towards the crop insurance
amount for the year 2017-18, Paddy-II, in respect of the Villages namely,
Thittacheri, Alathoor, Eravancheri, Seeathamangai, Kothamangalam and
Kuthalam in Nagapattinam Taluk and District under the ''PRADHAN
MANTRI FASAL BIMA YOJANA [PMFBY]'' Scheme with interest at
the rate of 12% per annum from the date of writ petition. The entire
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
payment as required as per the assessment of damages as indicated in the
table for all the writ petitioners / respondents 1 to 52 herein, shall be
disbursed by the Insurance Company, namely, the 54th respondent herein,
along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum as indicated above,
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
(30)Post on 15.12.2024 for reporting compliance.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [A.D.M.C., J.]
17.10.2024
AP
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Neutral Citation: Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Managing Director,
Kumbakonam Central Cooperative Bank Ltd
No.2, TSR Big Street, Kumbakonam
Thanjavur District.
2.The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Nagapattinam Region, Nagapattinam District.
3.The Regional Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Ltd
No.770-A, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
4.The Secretary
2719, Thittacheri Primary Agricultural
Cooperative Society Ltd.,
Purakiramam 609 703,
Nagapattinam Taluk & District.
5.The Director of Agriculture,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S. SUNDAR, J.,
and
A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.,
AP
17.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
