Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Customer data in The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. ... on 12 September, 2025Matching Fragments
112. The insurance companies are also required to deploy sufficient number of manpower to co-observe CCEs, which are carried out by officers of the Agriculture department of the respondent - State.
113. Clauses 7.2.1.3 to 7.2.1.6, again highlight the importance of CCEs and the data generated therefrom. In fact, threshold yield itself is calculated on the basis of such data pertaining to past seven years.
114. Clause 16.10 of the ROG stipulates that if CCE data submitted through CCE Agri App is not approved within the stipulated timelines, it shall stand approved automatically and it shall be used for claim calculation. This is crucial as it indicates that under the ROG, CCE data does form the bedrock of claim calculation. Clause 18 of the ROG pertains to assessment of loss / shortfall in yield and the sub- clauses thereof give the details as to the manner in which CCEs shall be considered and that CCEs shall be undertaken per crop per unit area of insurance for notified crop. A reference is made to two step yield assessment and the manner in which approved CCEs shall be conducted by the Officers of the Agriculture department, in the presence of the Officers of the insurance company. Clause 18.4.5 61 WP-11973-2022+ states that the State Government shall compulsorily constitute a steering committee in each district to plan, conduct and supervise the CCEs for yield assessment and to provide reports of yield data to the State Nodal Department. There are specific instructions available in the clauses for the modalities of conducting the CCEs in respect of various crops.
116. The contents of the above quoted clause further demonstrate the importance of CCE data for calculating amounts payable under the add-on cover as per ROG, including situations of localized calamities.
117. The subsequent clauses of ROG, particularly clause 21 pertaining to assessment and claim settlement refer to and rely upon CCE data. In respect of claims due to mid-season adversity, the insurance companies are required to make an immediate upfront payment to the extent of likely claim and clause 21.4.2.7 of the ROG provides that such amount of 25% of the likely claims payable, shall be subject to adjustments against final claims based on yield assessment data arrived through the CCEs. Thus, finalization of the claims in various add-on covers specifically depends upon CCE data. Even clause 21.5 of the ROG pertaining to 'localized calamity', with which we are concerned in the facts of the present case, indeed refers to and 63 WP-11973-2022+ relies upon CCE data for calculation, finalization and payment of claims to the farmers.
118. Even the post harvest claims covered under clause 21.6 refer to the CCE data in the context of initial payment and then finalization of the claims of the farmers. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that CCE data is one of the most significant aspects of ROG under the PM Yojna, as it forms the bedrock of calculation and finalization of the claims in the event any of the contingencies occur, which pertain to add on coverage as per various clauses of the ROG. There is substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner - insurance company that CCE data cannot be simply ignored even in the facts of the present case. We are unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of the respondent - State that the localized calamity that occurred in the present case requires calculation and payments of the claims of the farmers by ignoring the CCE data, although it is admittedly available and provided by the respondent - State itself to the petitioner - insurance company.
154. It is also un-deniable that even upon applying clause 21.5.10.1 of the ROG, if actual losses on the basis of CCE data were higher, the remaining 50% amount would have been payable to the farmers, proportionate to the losses suffered. But, the undisputed CCE data provided by the respondent - State itself shows that in case of all the 42 circles of District - Osmanabad concerning the notified crop Soyabean, there was no actual loss suffered. This was because the actual yield in all the 42 circles of the District - Osmanabad was found to be more than threshold yield. Therefore, this Court is unable to agree with the respondent - State that the petitioner - insurance 89 WP-11973-2022+ company was being rapacious while denying the claims raised by the respondent - State on behalf of the farmers.