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.5 with interest @ 18% p.a, towards mental agony of Rs.5,000/- each and cost of the proceedings.

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

          Complainants are resident of Khanapur village of Naragund Taluk, Gadag.  District. They have grown Wheat, Maize, & Sunflower for the year 2004 in Kharif/Rabi season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule through OP No.3. 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 & 3 appeared through their counsels, OP No.2 appeared through DGP.  Op No.1 to 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  Wheat, Maize, & Sunflower during the year 2004 for Kharif/Rabi seasons.   As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall. Hence, claim is not settled.  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.2 are as under:

          OP No.2 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop during the Kharif/Rabi season 2004.  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. 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 2004.  OP No.3 stated that, they are acting as collecting agent and mediator between the complainants and OP No.1, they have receive proposal forms premium amount and submitted to OP No.1.  They have not responsible and there is no deficiency of service committed by OP No.3. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          6. After hearing, my predecessor passed common judgment on 07.05.2008, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the Appeal before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru,   the   same   came  to  be dismissed. OP No.1 preferred R.P. No.1369/09 before Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the same came to be allowed 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 23.03.2010 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.2323/10 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and the same came to be allowed on 13.12.2010 and remanded for fresh disposal.

8. After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor again passed common judgment on 02.12.2015 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.123/16 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.

          9. After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties. Complainant No.2 is reported as dead,  no LRs are brought on record. Notice served to Complainant No.1 to 3. Complainant No.3 filed affidavit and examined as PW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11. Notice served to OP No.1 to 3. DGP filed memo of appearance for OP No.2 and written version.  K.V.K. Adv. filed power for OP No.1. Op No.1 to  3 not chosen to filed affidavit evidence. OP No.1 filed written arguments.

10.     No arguments advanced on both sides as no representation made out.

          11.     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?

       12.   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

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

            14.   On careful perusal of the materials placed before us, case remanded for fresh disposal with a direction take affidavit evidence of all complainants. PW-1 filed affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. PW-1 has  stated that,  complainants are resident of Khanapur village of Naragund Taluk Gadag.  District. They have grown Wheat, Maize, & Sunflower for the year 2004 in Kharif/Rabi season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule through OP No.3. 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. 

15.     Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 RTCs and other documents are not disputing by the Ops. Main contention of Op No.1 is that there was a no shortfall as per yield data report issued by statistical department. In the written version filed by Op No.1 shown the threshold yield, assessed yield and shortfall for the year 2004 for Kharif/Rabi season, there is no shortfall. 

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 2004 and complaint filed after 4 years in the year 2008. Even complaint is barred by limitation. Complainant No. 2 is reported as dead and his LR is not brought on record.  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, they cannot be entitled the reliefs.

          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 13^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 : Channappa Basangouda Patil

a

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1: Copy of Gazette  

Ex.C-2: D.C. order dtd:22.07.2004.

Ex.C-3 : Letter issued by Bank dtd:03.10.2007

Ex.C-4:  Legal notice.

Ex.C-5 to 8 : RTCs

Ex.C-9 & 10: Letters issued by Dist: Statistical Dept. Gadag dtd:29.08.2012

Ex.C-11: Letter issued by Dist: Statistical Dept. Gadag dtd:26.09.2012

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

        -NIL-

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

          -NIL-

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

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT            WOMAN MEMBER