Shivraj Singh Chouhan to transfer crop insurance claims worth Rs 3,200 cr to 30 lakh farmers on Monday
Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan will digitally transfer Rs 3,200 crore in crop insurance claims to 30 lakh farmers under PMFBY during an event in Rajasthan. The new claim settlement system ensures faster payouts, with penalties for delayed subsidies from states or insurance companies. Since 2016, PMFBY has disbursed Rs 1.83 lakh crore in claims, benefiting farmers significantly.
TNN Representational New Delhi: Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan will on Monday digitally transfer a crop insurance claim amount of Rs 3,200 crore under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) to 30 lakh farmer beneficiaries.The PMFBY claim amount will be transferred during an event organised for this purpose in Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.Besides Chouhan, Rajasthan Chief Minister Bhajanlal Sharma, Union Minister of State for Agriculture Bhagirath Choudhary, and state agriculture minister Kirodi Lal Meena will attend the event.Of the total claim amount, Rs 1,156 crore will be transferred to farmers in Madhya Pradesh, Rs 1,121 crore to 7 lakh farmers in Rajasthan, Rs 150 crore to Chhattisgarh-based farmers, and Rs 773 crore to farmers in other states, according to an official statement.The Union agriculture minister stated that the Centre has implemented a new simplified claim settlement system in the interest of farmers, wherein claims can be paid proportionately based only on the central subsidy without waiting for the state's premium contribution.
"From the Kharif 2025 season onwards, if a state government delays its subsidy contribution, it will be penalised at 12 per cent, and similarly, if insurance companies delay payments, farmers will receive a 12 per cent penalty," he said in the statement.The PMFBY, since its launch in 2016, has disbursed claims worth Rs 1.83 lakh crore, while farmers have paid only Rs 35,864 crore in premium."This means an average claim payout of more than five times the premium, indicating the government's farmer-friendly policy," he added.In recent years, several technological innovations, such as YES-TECH, WINDS portal, AIDE mobile app, Krishi Rakshak Portal and Helpline number 14447, have been implemented.
These have not only improved the claim settlement speed and transparency, but also enhanced weather data accuracy and provided farmers with registration facilities at the village level.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
5 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Ban on overaged vehicles: No coercive steps to be taken while SC hears review plea
In a relief to vehicle owners in the National Capital Region (NCR), the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed that no coercive action be taken against owners of 10-year-old diesel and 15-year-old petrol vehicles while it hears a review plea filed by the Delhi government in this regard. Issuing notice on the plea, a three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai said, 'In the meantime, no coercive steps to be taken against the owners of the car on the ground that they are 10 years old in respect to diesel vehicles and 15 years old with respect to petrol vehicles.' The bench also comprised Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria. As part of efforts to combat air pollution, the National Green Tribunal had in 2015 directed that diesel vehicles older than 10 years and petrol vehicles older than 15 years should not be allowed to operate in Delhi NCR. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. Recently, the Delhi government had approached the Supreme Court seeking a review of the order saying the blanket ban on old vehicles 'was observed to have caused numerous practical hardships to the citizens of Delhi'. In its application dated July 25, the Rekha Gupta government had argued that 'the road-worthiness of a vehicle is a technical and scientific issue that must be linked to actual emissions as tested and recorded by mechanisms as set out under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, etc., as opposed to blanket ban on the basis of age which is unlinked to actual emissions'. It added that the ban on the plying of the said vehicles in the last seven years, 'though undoubtedly salutary in aim, was observed to have caused numerous practical hardships to the citizens of Delhi, which today, in light of the advancements in technology and enforcement now prima facie appear to outweigh the prudence and feasibility of continuance of the said ban'. The plea further urged the court to direct the Centre or the Commission on Air Quality Management (CAQM) 'to carry out a suitable broad based, scientific study on the need for continuance' of the complete ban imposed by the Supreme Court's October 29, 2018, order. The government said the complete ban order 'was originally passed as an emergency measure during a period when Bharat Stage IV (BS-IV) emission standards were in force and the migration to Bharat Stage VI (BS-VI), which has much stricter and advanced norms, had not yet commenced'. It added, 'However, it is submitted that to tackle the issue of pollution in the NCR region, a comprehensive policy is required which gives vehicle fitness based on the actual emission levels of an individual vehicle as per scientific methods rather than implementing a blanket ban based on solely the age of the vehicle.' The government said that significant technological, legal, and environmental developments have taken place since 2018, which warrant a 're-examination of this decision' by an expert body to form a structured and graded plan to tackle pollution. The state said that since the issue of Delhi's air quality is not confined solely to the National Capital Territory but rather to the broader NCR, it is submitted that 'it would be appropriate if suitable scientific studies on the feasibility, desirability and efficacy of continuing the said ban are carried out' at the level of the Union government or the CAQM. The Delhi government's attempt to stop fuel supply to end-of-life vehicles had met with hurdles soon after it came into effect in the Capital on July 1. Citing 'critical operational and infrastructural challenges', it had asked CAQM to put the fuel ban 'on hold with immediate effect.'
Hindustan Times
5 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Govt seeks to allay concerns on E20, says no impact on insurance
India has achieved its target of mixing 20% ethanol with petrol nearly 10 months earlier than the 2025-26 deadline set by the government, but drivers appear to be wary of blended gasoline impacting engines and fuel economy of cars, especially older vehicles, concerns the petroleum ministry said are 'unfounded'. Many drivers have taken to social-media platforms of late, complaining about lower mileage with blended petrol and poorer drive quality. (ANI) Many drivers have taken to social-media platforms of late, complaining about lower mileage with blended petrol and poorer drive quality. There have been doubts if insurance and warranty were rendered void with using petrol with 20% ethanol, know as E20. The petroleum ministry on Tuesday clarified that blended petrol didn't invalidate vehicle insurance. Automobiles 'tuned' for E20 delivered better acceleration and drivability, the ministry said, adding that the government's high-priority ethanol-blending programme had substantially cut pollution and saved foreign exchange that goes into oil purchases. 'On most parameters, there are no issues,' the ministry said to quell growing consumer skepticism. Oil marketing companies achieved the E20 goal in July, after having reached 19.92% in the previous month, with an output of 66 billion litres of ethanol during 2024-25, official data show. Of this, 25.5 billion litres came from grains and the rest from molasses, a byproduct of sugar. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had in 2021 advanced the target of blending petrol with 20% ethanol by five years to 2025-26 to cut emissions and the nation's oil import bill. The strategy has saved India nearly ₹1.44 lakh crore in crude import costs between 2014 and 2024, according to official data, helping cut an estimated 54.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. In a social-media post on August 2, the ministry did say that ethanol, which is of lower energy density than petrol, resulted in a 'marginal decrease in mileage, estimated at 1–2% for four-wheelers designed for E10 and calibrated for E20, and around 3–6% in others'. The Centre had hastened the E20 programme with a raft of measures to help turn sugarcane molasses and grains, such as rice and maize, into ethanol, which is mixed 20 parts to 80 parts of petrol. Sugar mills were given soft loans to add distillation capacity to make ethanol. The government also allocated 5.2 million tonnes of surplus rice owned by the Food Corporation of India, each for 2024-25 and 2025-26, for ethanol production. It also allowed diversion of four million tonnes of sugar in 2024-25 and lowered the goods and services tax rate to 5% for ethanol used in the E20 programme. Fuel efficiency in older ICT (internal combustion engines) will naturally be lower due to E20 because ethanol has a lower energy content of about 21 megajoule (MJ) per litre against 34.2 MJ of pure petrol, said Santhosh K, a professor at the Manipal Institute of Technology. The Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers, or Siam, has been working to ensure vehicles are compliant with E20 fuel, with material compliance starting in 2023 and full readiness by 2025-26. Under a government-mandated programme, automakers started producing vehicles with fuel components that can withstand wear and tear caused by ethanol. The ministry said 'replacement of some rubber parts/ gaskets could be advised in certain older vehicles after prolonged use of say 20,000 to 30,000 kms. This replacement is inexpensive and easily done during regular servicing of the vehicle'. On fuel economy, the ministry on Friday said mileage depended on factors beyond just fuel type, including driving habits and maintenance. Many aren't convinced. 'Sudden drop in mileage after filling at HCPL station. Government should also sell pure petrol, not just E20,' wrote Geeta M, a Banglorean, on X. Some consumers say the government should give an option to purchase pure unblended petrol, which the ministry has ruled out. The country had reached its goal of E10, or 10% ethanol blending, ahead of schedule in 2022. A decision on whether the blending programme would be ramped up will be taken only when an interministerial panel submits its report and wider consultations with stakeholders are held. 'There has been a period of over four years which has allowed vehicle technology to improve, supply chain to be calibrated and an overall eco-system developed,' the ministry said in response to demand by some consumers that pure petrol should also be available to drivers. 'The alternative of going back to E-0 petrol would involve losing the hard fought gains on pollution and the success achieved in energy transition,' the ministry said.
Mint
5 minutes ago
- Mint
Sebi gets interim relief as HC halts special court order to probe a 1995 IPO
Can a special court order the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) to initiate investigation of alleged malfeasance brought to its notice by an investor? The Bombay high court is currently seized of such a case, and the final outcome could reinforce the line between judicial overreach and regulatory autonomy. The Bombay high court has in the interim stayed a special court's order that directed Sebi to investigate alleged irregularities in Radhe Developers' December 1995 listing on the BSE, after an investor sought a court-ordered probe through the criminal procedure route. The interim stay halts the special court's 23 January order, which required Sebi to investigate and file an action taken report, till the High Court hears the case again. The matter, listed in mid-June, is expected to be taken up again later this month. A single-judge bench of Justice R.N. Laddha issued notice to the complainant on Sebi's revision plea and recorded the regulator's core position: special courts under the Sebi Act are meant to try offences on complaints instituted by Sebi, and do not have the jurisdiction to compel the regulator to open investigations or supervise how it exercises its administrative powers. In its April order, the high court highlighted Sebi's challenge to the special court's authority and stayed the 'execution, operation and implementation" of the impugned order. The underlying proceedings stem from a complaint by investor and legal reporter Sapan Shrivastava, who alleged that the Gujarat-based realty developer Radhe Developers was listed on the BSE in December 1995 without complying with Sebi's listing norms and sought directions under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which empowers a magistrate to direct initiation of an investigation. Also Read: Sebi chief urges redefining role of independent directors as stewards of accountability While acknowledging that Section 26 of the Sebi Act allows cognisance of offences only on a complaint by the regulator, the special court nevertheless held it could direct Sebi to investigate in investors' interest, and ordered the regulator to inquire and report back. Arguing before the High Court, Sebi said that Section 156(3) CrPC is confined to directing police to investigate cognisable offences and cannot be applied to statutory regulators operating under their own enabling law. The regulator also stressed that special courts are designed for expeditious trial of offences arising under the Sebi Act upon a Sebi-filed complaint, not to mandate investigations or control Sebi's discretion at the pre-complaint stage. Shares of Radhe Developers closed 3.5% lower at ₹2.74 apiece on the BSE on Tuesday. Why this matters The case could reset the line between judicial oversight and regulatory autonomy in securities law enforcement, especially for investors attempting to revive scrutiny of legacy listings through criminal court applications. 'The role of a special court is to adjudicate offences brought before it, not to identify or investigate them in the first instance," Sachit Mathur, managing partner at Emerald Law Offices, said. Allowing special courts to direct Sebi to investigate would be an overreach and ultra vires, he said, warning it could disrupt Sebi's autonomy and the statutory design that vests investigation squarely with the regulator. Mathur added that magistrates' directions under the criminal procedure code extend only to police and do not bind Sebi. Investors can escalate grievances on SCORES, which is Sebi's online complaint redressal platform, approach Sebi's grievance cell, and, if needed, file a writ under Article 226 for a time-bound mandamus to consider the representation without dictating the outcome. Under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, high courts can issue writs or directives for the enforcement of fundamental and other legal rights. Mandamus is one of the five writs, which is issued to force a public authority to perform a public duty. Aditya Bhansali, founding partner at Mindspright Legal, said the Sebi Act does not empower special courts to order Sebi to initiate an investigation on an investor's application, and Section 156(3) cannot compel statutory regulators to exercise investigative powers. 'The most effective lawful route for investors seeking action is to file a writ petition before the high court," he said, noting that while the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) is an appellate forum, it is available only when there is an order by Sebi or an exchange, often absent where investors allege inaction. The Bombay high court's interim stay aligns with its recent caution against trial courts mechanically directing criminal or investigative measures in securities market cases without clear legal footing. Also Read: Sebi mulls framework to boost resident Indians participation in FPIs Earlier this year, it stayed an Anti-Corruption Bureau court's order directing registration of an FIR against former Sebi chair Madhabi Puri Buch and others, finding the order mechanical and non-specific. Rohit Jain, managing partner at Singhania & Co, said that directing an investigation would usurp a function reserved for the regulator and act before the court's jurisdiction properly begins. Implications for investors For investors, the case could reshape how Sebi's online grievance redressal platform SCORES and other remedies are used. As Bombay High Court counsel Yash Joglekar noted, Section 156(3) authorises directions to the officer in charge of a police station, not to Sebi. Legacy matters face added hurdles: laches from decades-long delays, incomplete listing records, and missing witnesses—while Section 26 of the Sebi Act bars criminal proceedings unless initiated by Sebi itself. The doctrine of laches is a legal principle under which legal claims can be barred due passage of an unreasonably long time. If the high court affirms that special courts cannot compel Sebi to investigate, the practical path shifts to administrative and constitutional routes, he said. 'Investors will have to rely on escalation through SCORES and the grievance cell, use RTI to seek reasons for inaction, approach SAT where there is an appealable order, and file writ petitions for time-bound consideration—without asking courts to micromanage outcomes." Tushar Kumar, advocate at the Supreme Court, cautioned that vintage listings pose severe practical barriers. 'Listings from the mid-1990s raise formidable obstacles—from limitation and laches to the retrieval of contemporaneous evidence, records and witnesses," he said. A ruling upholding Sebi's stance would entrench regulatory autonomy and curb ad hoc, court-driven probes, while pushing investors towards regulatory and constitutional remedies, he added. Also Read: Sebi rejects Anil Ambani's settlement plea over Yes Bank investments 'Such a pronouncement would reinforce the line between judicial oversight and regulatory independence and may trigger debate on narrowly tailored statutory channels for independent scrutiny in exceptional cases—preserving market integrity without undermining Sebi's functional autonomy."
