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 crop loan insurance for Rs.1,34,548/- with interest @ 12% p.a, towards mental agony Rs.10,000/- each and cost of the proceedings. 

           2.  The brief facts of the complaint are under:

          Complainants are residents of Huilgol village of Gadag Taluk.  They have grown Bengalgram, Jowar, Wheat and Sunflower crops for the year 2002-03 in Rabi season and paid the premium amount through OP No.3.  The Government declared drought and waived the revenue tax of the Agricultural lands.  However, OPs did not pay the insured amount.  Complainants have separately mentioned the extent of land, premium amount, insurance amount, season and name of crop in detail.

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

          4.       The brief facts of the 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 during the Rabi season 2002-03.  As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall in the yield to Bengalgram, Jowar, Wheat and Sunflower crops, Gadag Hobli of Gadag District during Rabi-2002-03 season.  In the written version it is specifically mentioned as threshold yield for Bengalgram is 256, assessed yield is 291 and shortfall is Nil, for Jowar threshold yield is 373, assessed yield is 496 and shortfall is Nil, for Wheat threshold yield is 176, assessed yield is 354 and shortfall is Nil and for Sunflower threshold yield is 519, assessed yield is 648 and shortfall is Nil.

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

          OP No.3 denied the various allegations and contended that, as regards the payment aspects if any, it has to be settled by the insurance company.  This OP has remitted the necessary premium collected to the insurance company and therefore, it is for the insurance company to consider the case of the complainants.  The settlement of the amount is made by the insurance company and whatever the amount settled by the insurance company, the same is accordingly paid to the concerned eligible insured persons and there is no deficiency of service on the part of this OP.  Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          5.       To prove the case, complainant No.13 filed affidavit on 10.09.2008 and examined as PW-1 and marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15.  OPs have not filed the affidavit evidence and the documents marked as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3

          6.       After hearing on merit, complaint is partly allowed in common judgment in Complaint Nos.299/2008 and 338/2008 along with this complaint on 24.09.2008 and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 challenged the judgment in Appeal  No.1615/2009 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, the same came to be allowed on 27.08.2009 and remanded for fresh disposal.  After receipt of the records, parties appeared through their counsel

and OP No.1 filed IA to implead the DSO as additional respondent, the same is rejected.  Again my predecessor passed a judgment on 23.03.2010 and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.1647/2010 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, the same came to be allowed on 30.09.2010 and remanded for re-consideration.  After receipt of the records, parties appeared.  On 07.05.2012, complainants remained absent and no representation is made out.  Hence, my predecessor dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution. 

          7.       Complainants preferred appeal in Appeal No.753/2016, the same came to be allowed on 03.02.2020.  Accordingly, restored the complaint on record and issued notice to the complainants. 

          8.       After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties. 

          9.       In spite of service of notice, complainant No.2, 4, 5, 7 to 10 and 13 remained absent and they have not chosen to file affidavit evidence.  Notice of complainant No.1, 6, 11 and 12 are reported as dead.  Affidavit filed by complainant No.1 on 04.11.2008 is examined as CW-1 and the documents produced by complainants are marked as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15.  Sri. KVK, Advocate for OP No.1 and DGP filed memo of appearance for OP No.2 and written version.  Hence, taken as no further evidence of the complainants and documents produced by OP No.1 is marked as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3.  

          10.     The brief facts of the written version filed by OP No.2 are as under: 

          OP No.2 contended that, petition is not maintainable as per the columns and guidelines of the Government.  The Department of Finance and Statistics submitted the record to the Commission.  This OP is not a consumer, the duty of the OP No.2 is only a supervision of other OPs.      

          11.     Heard the arguments.  The counsel for OP No.1 filed written arguments on 09.12.2011.

          12.     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?

       13.   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

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

             15.  On careful perusal of the materials placed before us, complainant No.13 filed affidavit in-lieu of his examination in chief and was examined as CW-1 and reiterated the contents of the complaint. CW-1 has stated that, they are residents of Huilgol village of Gadag Taluk.  They have grown Bengalgram, Jowar, Wheat and Sunflower crops for the year 2002-03 in Rabi season and paid the premium amount through OP No.3.  The Government declared drought and waived the revenue tax of the Agricultural lands.  However, OPs did not pay the insured amount.

              16. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15, the proposal forms and RTCs are not disputed by the OPs.      The    main    contention   taken   by   the   OP  No.1 in written version is that, the complainants claimed for the loss of their crop during the Rabi season 2002-03.  As per the yield data Ex.OP-3 furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall in the yield for Bengalgram, Jowar, Wheat and Sunflower during Rabi-2002-03 season and in the written version it is specifically mentioned as threshold yield for Bengalgram is 256, assessed yield is 291 and shortfall is Nil, for Jowar threshold yield is 373, assessed yield is 496 and shortfall is Nil, for Wheat threshold yield is 176, assessed yield is 354 and shortfall is Nil and for Sunflower threshold yield is 519, assessed yield is 648 and shortfall is Nil.

                    17.     For the above, for the Rabi season 2002-03 to the Bengalgram, Jowar, Wheat and Sunflower crops in Gadag Hobli, in shortfall column it is shown as Nil.    Of course, OP No.1 has not filed affidavit evidence.

However, Ex.OP-3 issued by the Director of Economics and Statistics, for assessed year 2002-03 reveals that, in Gadag Hobli experiment planned-12, enalysed-12 and assessed yield is 374.  So, the contention taken by OP No.1 that, there is no shortfall during the year 2002-03 Rabi season for Bengalgram, Jowar, Wheat and Sunflower crops is proved. 

                    18.     In the appeal, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that, affidavit of each complainant shall be taken and reconsider afresh.  In spite of service of notice, complainants did not appear and file their affidavit evidence or documents.  So also, LRs of some of the complainants who are reported as dead subsequent to the remand have also not chosen to file their affidavit evidence.  The only evidence of complainant No.13, CW-1 is available.  Mere filing of complaint, without filing the affidavit evidence of complainant No.2 to 5, 7 to 10 and 13 are not entitled for the relief as per the observation made by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.  Even though sole complainant No.13 filed affidavit evidence, but not proved his case that, there was a shortfall during the year 2002-03 for Rabi season for Bengalgram, Jowar, Wheat and Sunflower crops.  Further, complaint is filed after lapse of the statutory period of two years limitation.

                   19.     For the above, complainants have failed to prove their case and are not entitled for the relief as sought for in the complaint.  Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 and 2 in Negative.

                    20.     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.

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 8^th day of July- 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: Ramappa Basappa Hatti

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 to 15: RTCs

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

            -NIL-

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.OP-1 & 2:Letter by Finance and Statistical Department, Gadag dated              

                    11.06.2009 with CCEs.

Ex.OP-3:Letter by Directorate of Economics and Statistics, dated                                

                   31.07.2003 Assessed yield Report for 2002-03 Rabi.

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

        MEMBER                 PRESIDENT              WOMAN MEMBER