TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Insurance claims: Technical panel to look into mismatch of area under cotton

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

Deepender Deswal

Advertisement

Advertisement

Hisar, December 14

The contentious issue of the insurance claims of about Rs 120 crore under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) for the cotton crop damage that occurred in 72 villages of the district in kharif season last year will be settled by the Haryana State Technical Advisory Committee (HSTAC).

Sources said the insurance firm, Reliance General Insurance (RGI), raised an objection after a massive mismatch of the data of the area under cotton crop and crop area that had been insured under the PMFBY came to light.

Advertisement

The firm had released claims worth Rs 396 crore to farmers in the district, but withheld the claims of about 55,000 farmers.

An official said the Revenue Department had verified that these 72 villages had a total cotton crop of 16,554 hectare and confirmed the crop damage for various reasons. However, the firm claimed that the farmers of 72 villages had got cotton crop on 30,873 hectare insured under the PMFBY. After the mismatch of data of the Revenue Department and the insured area, the firm refused to release the payment of claims as it would have to release claims to additional 14,319 hectare, which did not even have cotton crop.

The sources said the administration had tasked revenue officials to settle the matter, but they could not. “It turned out to be a matter of multiple insurance for the same area of crop. For example, one acre of crop was insured by banks, which had given loan to the farmers for sowing the crop. But the land was leased out to another farmer by the landowner, and then the lessee farmer too got this crop insured under non-loanee farmers insurance cover. It might be an attempt to get double the insurance crop, or even by mistake,” they said.

Advertisement
Tags :
AgricultureHisar
Show comments
Advertisement