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 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.No.236/2022 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 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.No.236/2022 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 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.No.236/2022 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 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.No.236/2022 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 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.No.236/2022 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 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.No.236/2022 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 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.No.236/2022 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 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.No.236/2022 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 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.No.236/2022 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 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.No.236/2022 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. 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.No.236/2022 (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 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.No.236/2022 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.
16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.No.236/2022
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 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.No.236/2022 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 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.No.236/2022 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.'' 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.No.236/2022 (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 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.No.236/2022 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 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.No.236/2022 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. 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.No.236/2022 (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 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.No.236/2022 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 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.No.236/2022 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
25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.No.236/2022
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.
26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA.No.236/2022 S.S. SUNDAR, J., and A.D.MARIA CLETE, J., AP WA.No.236/2022 17.10.2024 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis