V/s

JUDGEMENT

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. D.Y. BASAPUR, PRESIDENT

                    The complainants have filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for recovery crop loan insurance amount as shown in schedule para No.4 with interest @ 18% p.a, towards mental agony of Rs.1,000/- each and cost of the proceedings.

           1.  The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

          Complainants are resident of  Adrakatti village of Shirahatti Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown, Green gram, Onion and Groundnut for the year 2005-06 in Kharif/Rabi season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule through OP No.2. Due to shortage of rain, complainants have suffered loss.  Inspite of repeated request to Ops, they did not settled the claim.  So, Ops have committed the deficiency of service.  Hence, filed this complaint.

          2.       In pursuance of service of notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel, OP No.3 appeared through DGP and Op No.2 remained absent. Op No.1 & 3 filed written version. 

          3.       The brief facts of written version filed by OP No.1 are as under:

          OP No.1 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop Greengram, Onion and Groundnut during the year 2005-06 for Kharif/Rabi seasons.   As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall except Onion (RF) & Groundnut (RF) and same already settled. Onion, Greengram & Groundnut for Rabi season 2005 is not notified.  So, there is no deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          4. The brief facts of  written version filed by OP No.3 are as under:

          OP No.3 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop during the Kharif/Rabi season 2005-06.  Complainants are not a consumer; this Op has only supervising power over the other Ops.  So, there is no deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          5. After hearing, my predecessor passed common judgment on 13.11.2008, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.1888/2009 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru,   the   same   came  to  be allowed on 10.09.2009 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          6.       After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor again passed common judgment on 28.05.2010 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.2691/10 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and the same came to be allowed on 28.10.2010 and remanded for fresh disposal.

7. After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor again passed common judgment on 14.12.2015 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.284/16 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and the same came to be allowed on 03.02.2020 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          8. After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties. Notice served to complainant No.1 to 8, they are remained absent. Complainant No.6 filed affidavit on 04.11.2008 and examined as CW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.C-1. Taken as no evidence of complainant No.1 to 5,7 and 8.   DGP appeared for Op No.3 and filed the written version. Notice served to Op No.1 & 2. OP No.2 remained absent and OP No.1  filed affidavit evidence and examined as RW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-13.

9.       Heard, arguments on both sides.

10.     The points for consideration to us are as under:

1. Whether the complainants prove that, there is a deficiency in service by the OPs?

2. Whether the complainants prove that, they are          

entitled for relief?

3. What Order?

       11.   Our findings on the above points are as under:

               Point No. 1:  Negative.

               Point No. 2:  Negative

               Point No. 3:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

              12.   Point No.1 & 2:- The points are taken together to avoid the repetition of facts.

            13.   On careful perusal of the materials placed before us, case remanded for fresh disposal with a direction take affidavit evidence of all complainants. CW-1 has filed affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. CW-1 has stated that, complainants are resident of  Adrakatti village of Shirahatti Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown, Greengram, Onion and Groundnut for the year 2005-06 in Kharif/Rabi season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule through OP No.2. Due to shortage of rain, complainants have suffered loss.  Inspite of repeated request to Ops, they did not settled the claim.  So, Ops have committed the deficiency of service. 

14. Ex.C-1 document is not disputing by the Ops. RW-1 filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of the written version filed by the OP No.1. RW-1 has stated that, OP No.1 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop Greengram, Onion and Groundnut during the year 2005-06 for Kharif/Rabi seasons.   As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall except Onion (RF) & Groundnut (RF) and same already settled. Onion, Greengram & Groundnut for Rabi season 2005 is not notified.  So, there is no deficiency of service.

15. Ex.OP-1 to 13 clearly goes to show that, Greengram, Onion & Groundnut for the year 2005 for Rabi season, Govt. has not issued notification. However, complainants claiming the compensation, without notification they are not entitled. OP No.1 settled the claim for shortfall. Ops have adopted the guidelines issued by the governments and already settled the claim.

16. Even no cause of action arose to file this complaint as there is no deficiency of service committed by Ops. Complainants claiming compensation for the loss of crops for the year 2005-06 and complaint filed after 3 years in the year 2008. Notice served to omplainant No.1 to 8 are remained absent. Inspite of service of notice and they have not chosen to file affidavit evidence except complainant No.6.. Without proving the case with affidavit evidence and documents, complainants are not entitled the reliefs. Mere allegation made in the complaint without producing documentary evidence to show that there is a shortfall and not settled the claim.

          17.     For the above, complainants have failed to prove that OPs have committed deficiency of service and they are entitled for the reliefs.   Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 and 2 in Negative.         

             18.  POINT NO. 3: In the result, we pass the following:

//O R D E R//

              The complaint filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is dismissed.No order as to costs.

Amount transferred from State Commission, deposited by OP No.1 is ordered to return to OP No.1 after appeal period.

Office is directed to send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

            (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 17^th  day of September- 2022)

           (Shri Raju N. Metri)    (Shri. D.Y. Basapur)   (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT            WOMAN MEMBER

-: ANNEXURE :-

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S:

PW-1 : Ningangouda Prabhugouda Patil

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1: Letter issued by Dist. Statistical department Gadag dtd:29.09.2012.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

RW-1 : Praveen Kumar B.R.

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.OP-1:Scheme guidelines.

Ex.Op-2 & 3 : Instruction to Nodal Banks.

Ex.OP-4:Kharif-2005 Nodal Bankwise Claims.

Ex.OP-5:Statement showing yearwise assessed yield (in KGS/Hect) for the Hoblis

             proposed for notification under RKBY for 2004-05. Kharif (Unirrigated)

Ex.Op-6:- Assessed yield 2004-05.

Ex.OP-7: Letter issued by Director dtd:31.03.2006.

Ex.Op-8 : Assessed yield 2004-05.

Ex.Op-9: Letter issued by Director dtd:31.03.2006.

Ex.OP-10 : Statement showing the year wise assessed yield in KGs/Hectors for the

               Hoblis proposed for notification under RKBY for 2004 Kharif (Groundnut)

Ex.Op-11: Assessed yield 2004-05.

Ex.Op-12 : Letter issued by Director dtd:31.03.2006.

Ex.Op-13 : Details  of the past 5 years Assessed Yield data District/Taluka/Hobli wise

        (Shri Raju N. Metri)    (Shri. D.Y. Basapur)   (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT            WOMAN MEMBER