JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. The above said revision petitions will show hy our Farmers/Agriculturists, are still living in extreme penury? The State, for their upliftment, creates a number of Schemes, Purchases crops from them, in the hope that their price would be paid to them on the nail, but alas, for recovering the price, they have to rush from pillar to post !. 2. The State Commission disposed of the above said four matters by a common judgment. The questions of facts and law are similar, therefore, this judgment will dispose of the four revision petitions, mentioned above. 3. During the year 2006-07, the Government of Karnataka started a Scheme, namely, Floor Price Scheme, to regulate the fair price for the produce of Onions, by the farmers. Annigeri Agricultural produce Co-operative and Sale Processing Society Ltd., were authorized to collect Onions at the Sale Processing Point, from the small farmers of different villages. Mahadevappa, Moulasab, Yallappa and Gurushiddappa, the complainants, are Agriculturists, and reside in Haliyal, Taluk-Hubli, District-Dharwad, Karnataka. 4. The complainants supplied Onions to the extent of 50 Quintals, each, worth, Rs.25,088/- each, to Annigeri Agricultural Produce Co-operative and Sale Processing Society Ltd, OP1, in the month of November, 2006. Thereafter, OP1 sold them and received the money. The grievance of the complainants is that when they approached the OP1 to get the sale consideration amount, OP1 failed to pay the amount, and in turn they started giving lame excuses. The complainants also issued legal notice to all the opposite parties/petitioners. 5. The case of OP1 is that the complainants have already received the A/c Payee cheques, drawn on Canara Bank, Annegiri Branch, on 30.04.2007, for Rs.25,088/-, each. OP 1 submitted that he had handed over all those cheques to Gurupadappa Sadashiv Bhoopali, at Dandikoppa, Taluk and District, Dharwad, and who has been arrayed as OP2. The said Gurupadappa Sadashiv Bhoopali himself, signed the cheques belonging to the complainants, also presented them and received the amount. The Manager, Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, Shivali Branch, District Dharwad, OP No.3, without proper enquiry and in collusion with OP 2, i.e., Gurupadappa Sadashiv Bhoopali, manipulated the documents like Election Card, I.D. Card and other documents. Under these circumstances, the complainants filed four separate complaints, before the District Forum and claimed an amount of Rs.25,088/-, each, and also compensation of Rs.20,000/- each, for mental agony. 6. It is also interested to note that complainants had opened their bank accounts with OP3, on 03.05.2007. However, OP1 issued the cheques drawn on Canara Bank, Annigeri Branch. OP 3, while opening the accounts, in favour of the complainants, enquired about production of documents to prove their identity. They produced the I.D. Card, issued by the Election Commission, which bear their photographs. 7. According to OP 3, the cheques were subsequently sent for collection to Canara Bank, Annigeri Branch, and the amounts recovered from the said cheques were credited to the respective Savings Bank A/c of the complainants. According to OP 3, the complainants have withdrawn the Account, on 22.05.2007. This appears to be a mere allegation which is not bolstered by cogent and convincing evidence. The Statements of Account, certified by the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, were not filed before the lower fora. Mere ipse dixit on the part of OP3, does not suffice. 8. On the other hand, the allegations made by the complainants are that OP2, while working in cahoots with OP1 and 3, withdrew the amounts by forging the signatures of the complainants and thereby all the OPs, are thus, liable to pay the compensation. 9. The State Commission noted that although OP3 produced Statement of Account of Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, in respect of S.Y.Parappa, for the period, w.e.f. 21.01.2007 to 21.10.2008, but did not produce the cheque leaf or the Pay Slip, to show that the complainants, in all the complaints, have withdrawn the amount, which was to be paid to them. OP3 could not produce any concrete or unflappable evidence to show that Onions amount was paid to the complainants. The relevant documents were kept under the hat. If produced, they would have gone a long way to elicit the clear picture. The specimen signatures of the complainants were retained by OP3, in its Bank record, the Pay Slips, were also withheld to show as to who had signed the Pay Slips. The Commission had no opportunity to compare both kinds of signatures, i.e., admitted signatures of the complainants kept in record of the Bank, and the signatures appearing on the Pay Slips, in token of receipt of the said amount. OP3 could not dare to produce any piece of evidence from a Handwriting Expert, to support its contention. OP3 has tried to bury its head under the sand and is liable for all the mischief, while working with cheek and jowl with the remaining two OPs. 10. It must be borne in mind that the main liability lies at the doors of OP1. It is its bounden duty to pay the amount to the poor farmers. That is why the position of the farmers is going down day-by-day, from ad to worse It is difficult to fathom as to why did OP1 hand over the cheques to OP2?. That is the point where mens rea among the parties, started. They had guilty intention, from the very start. The conspiracy is hatched under a rose. It is difficult to bring its clear cut evidence. However, the facts and circumstances of this case clearly speak for themselves. We see no flaw in the orders passed by both the fora below. No legal point is involved. The revision petitions are filed by the OP1. We have heard its counsel, at the time of admission. He has wasted our precious time. Therefore, we dismiss the revision petitions, in limine, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- in each case, as costs, which be paid to each of the complainants. Same be paid to the complainants, within 30 daysof receipt of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 9% p.a., till its realization. The Manager/Incharge of OP1 should muster the courage, order Departmental Inquiry, and punish the wrong doer, as per law.