High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, reserved judgment in three writ petitions seeking mandamus to compensate farmers for post-harvest soybean crop losses under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana-2020. The petitions challenged the insurance company's rejection of claims based on non-compliance with a 72-hour intimation requirement despite government data showing over 33% crop loss.

Public interest litigation and writ petition seeking mandamus for compensation for post-harvest soybean crop losses under PMFBY.

Petitioners sought writ of mandamus directing respondents to sanction and grant compensation for post-harvest losses to soyabean crops in Kharif 2020 for 3,57,287 agriculturists in Osmanabad District; alternatively, insurance company or state authorities to pay.

Heavy rainfall in October 2020 caused post-harvest damage to soybean crops; insurance company rejected claims for non-compliance with 72-hour intimation guideline despite government data showing more than 33% loss.

No previous judicial decision mentioned; the insurance company rejected the claim request administratively via letter dated 17.03.2021.

Whether the insurance company and/or State Government are liable to compensate agriculturists for post-harvest soybean crop losses under PMFBY despite alleged non-compliance with the 72-hour intimation requirement. Whether government-collected data showing more than 33% crop loss is sufficient to establish liability and compel payment of insurance claims. Whether the State Government, as guardian of agriculturists, bears responsibility to ensure compensation when the selected insurer refuses claims.

Petitioners argued that heavy rains in October 2020 caused severe post-harvest losses to soybean crops, with harvested heaps decaying, decomposing, germinating, and being flown away. Petitioners contended that government data collected taluka-wise showed 4,57,216 affected agriculturists and 2,08,756.5 hectares affected across 8 talukas, with losses exceeding 33%, and the Commissioner of Agriculture had requested insurers to consider post-harvest losses. Petitioners submitted that the State Government selected the insurer and executed a Memorandum of Understanding on 27.07.2020 on behalf of farmers, making the State liable, and individual execution of MoUs was impractical for numerous farmers. Petitioners argued that the insurer could not reject claims on the technical ground of 72-hour intimation when the government had already collected and forwarded detailed loss data. Insurance company contended that post-harvest loss was an individual claims category requiring survey and assessment for farmers who gave intimation as per the scheme, and since claims were not made as per operational guidelines, the request for payment was rejected.

Clause 7.5 specifically provides for post harvest losses. The District Superintendent of Agriculture, Osmanabad collected Taluka wise data and provided to the respondent no.7 Company alongwith chart showing that, there were total 4,57,216 affected agriculturists and the affected area came to 2,08,756.5 in all 8 Talukas of Osmanabad District. The Insurance Company could not have declined to grant benefit on the flimsy ground that as per the guidelines, the complaints would have been raised within 72 hours from the date of alleged loss suffered by the agriculturists.

Three proceedings (PIL 91/2021, PIL 64/2021, WP 6859/2021) were filed before the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court. By consent of parties, all were heard together and closed for judgment on 06.04.2022. Judgment was pronounced on 06.05.2022.

• Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana-2020 (PMFBY): Clause 2, Clause 3, Clause 7, Clause 7.5, Clause 11, Clause 11.2 E-6