Duraimanikam, v. The Secretary,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.06.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.(MD) No.11853 of 2018 Duraimanikam ... Petitioner /vs./ 1.The Secretary, T.A62, Theeyathur Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society Pvt., Avdaiyar Kovil Taluk, Pudukottai.

2.The Deputy Registrar, Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies, Kamatchi Amman Kovil Street, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District.

3.The Sub Registrar, Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies, Co-operative Commercial Complex, Pudukottai 622 001. 4.The Managing Director, Pudukkottai District Central Co-operative Banks, Keela Raja Veedhi, Pudukkottai 622 001.

1/9

5.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Government Co-operative Department, Secretariat, Fort Saint George, Chennai 600 009.

6.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Government Co-operative Department, Secretariat, Fort Saint George, Chennai 600 009.

7.Agriculture Insurance Co-operative Department, Regional Office, Old No.156, New No.323, Andhara Insurance Building First Floor, Thambuchety Street, Paris Corner, Chennai 600 001.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay sum of Rs. 2,19,700/- being the balance amount payable to the petitioners under the agricultural scheme towards the ordinary and additional coverage at interest 18% per annum.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan For R1 & R5 : No appearance For R4 : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi For R7 : Mr.D.Srinivasa Raghavan For R2, R3 & R6 : Mr.Senthil Ayyanar Government Advocate 2/9

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay sum of Rs.2,19,700/- being the balance amount payable to the petitioner under the agricultural scheme towards the ordinary and additional coverage at 18% interest per annum.

2.It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has paid premium to the first respondent against the crop losses under the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) for both normal coverage and additional coverage, to which the petitioner belongs to.

3.It is submitted that the 7th respondent, who is the Disbursing Authority, for the aforesaid loan insurance has paid a sum of Rs.2,57,300/- instead of Rs.4,77,000/- and thus, there is shortfall of Rs.2,19,700/-, as the petitioner has paid premium as additional coverage.

4.The learned Government Advocate for the respondents 2, 3 and 6 would submit that on enquiry, it was found that the first respondent has collected both 3/9

premiums towards normal coverage and additional coverage and had been remitted with the fourth respondent Bank in full and that the first respondent had failed to mention in the schedule that how many farmers paid premium under normal coverage and how many of them opted for additional coverage. 5.It is submitted that instead, the Secretary, who handled the matter, had listed out all the farmers under one category. This resulted that the actual amount, which due from the Insurance Company, of Rs.2,77,82,191/- was reduced to Rs. 2,47,61,333/-. As such, there is shortfall of Rs.30,20,858/-, which meant for 71 farmers including the petitioner, who paid special premium for additional insurance coverage were affected.

6.Para 16 of the counter filed on behalf of the respondents 2, 3 and 6 reads as under:

"16.The enquiry report dated 28.10.2015, revealed that, though the premium that collected for both Normal Coverage and Additional Coverage had been remitted with 4th respondent bank in full, the 1st respondent society had failed to mention in the schedule that how many farmers paid premium under Normal Coverage and how many of them opted for Additional Coverage. Instead, the secretary who handled the matter had listed out all the farmers under one category. This resulted that the actual amount which due from 4/9

the insurance company of Rs.2,77,82,191/- was reduced to Rs. 2,47,61,333/- And a short fall of Rs. 30,20,858/- which meant for 71 farmers including the petitioner, who paid special premium for Additional Insurance coverage were affected." 7.It is submitted that the 7th respondent has acted upon as per the provisions of the NAIS and has disbursed the amount for Rabi 2012-13. Para 10 of the counter filed on behalf of the 7th respondent reads as under: 5/9

8.I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 2, 3 and 6 and the learned counsels for the respondents 4 and 7. 9.The petitioner, who is a farmer, cannot be faulted for the mistake committed by the Secretary and the first respondent in filing the details of the petitioner before the fourth respondent, who is the Nodal Authority. 10.The report also indicates that the additional premium was received by 6/9

the 7th respondent and that only a sum of Rs.2,47,61,333/- was sanctioned as against Rs.2,77,82,191/-. The fact that the amount has been received towards additional coverage is not in dispute. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the relief. Therefore, the 7th respondent is directed to release the balance amount of Rs. 2,19,700/- to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11.With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 21.06.2024 Internet : Yes / No mm To 1.The Deputy Registrar, Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies, Kamatchi Amman Kovil Street, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District.

2.The Sub Registrar, Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies, 7/9

Co-operative Commercial Complex, Pudukottai 622 001.

3.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Government Co-operative Department, Secretariat, Fort Saint George, Chennai 600 009.

8/9

C.SARAVANAN, J.

mm 21.06.2024 9/9