V/s

JUDGEMENT

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. RAJU.N.METRI, MEMBER

          The complainants have filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for recovery of crop insurance amount of Rs.82,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a, Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and financial loss and cost of the proceedings to each complainant.

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

          Complainants are resident of Amargatti & Lakkalakatti village of Ron Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Groundnut and Sunflower  the year 2003-04 in Kharif 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 settle 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.2 appeared through DGP and Op No.3 remained absent. Op No.1 & 2 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 crops during the year 2003-04 for Kharif season.   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 crops during the Kharif season 2003-04.  Complainants are not a consumer as 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 16.09.2008, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.1629/2009 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bangalore,   the   same   came  to  be allowed on 27.08.2009

          6.       After receipt of the records, notice was issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor, again passed common judgment on 29.01.2010 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an Appeal No.1357/10 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore and the same came to be allowed on 30.08.2010 and was remanded for fresh disposal.

          7. After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties. Notice served to complainant. No.1,5,8,9 and OP No.1 to 3. Complainant No. 2,4,6 and 7 are reported as dead, and their LRs are brought on record. But complainant No.6 his LR not brought on record.  Complainant No.3 filed affidavit and examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9. K.V.K. Adv. filed  power   for OP No.1. DGP filed M/A and written version for OP No.2. OP No.3 remained absent.  Ops have not chosen to file affidavit evidence.

          8.       Heard, arguments on both sides.

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

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

2. Whether the complainants prove that, they are          

entitled for relief?

3. What Order?

       10.   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

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

            12.   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  has  filed affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. PW-1 has stated that, Complainants are resident of Amargatti village of Ron Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Groundnut and Sunflower  the year 2003-04 in Kharif 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 settle the claim.  So, Ops have committed the deficiency of service. 

13. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 are documents not disputed by the Ops. In written version  OP No.1 specifically stated that, there was no shortfall as per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics for crops.  So, there is no deficiency of service committed by the OP No.1. As per Assessed yield in respect of Kharif season 2003-04 issued by statistical department for Groundnut of Naregal  Hobli, Threshold yield is 143 KG/per Hect, Assessed yield is 356 and shortfall is NIL and for Sunflower Threshold yield is 230 KG/per Hect. Assessed yield is 565 KG/per Hect,. Therefore, Assessed yield is more than threshold yield. Hence, the shortfall is NIL.

14. Complainants claiming compensation for the loss of crops for the year 2003-04 and complaint filed after 3 years in the year 2008. Mere allegation made in the complaint without producing documentary evidence to show that there is a shortfall and not settled the claim, complainants are not entitled the relief. 

          15.     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.         

     16.     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, directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 19^st  day of November- 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 : Sharnappa S/o Hullappa Hosalli

COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 to 9 : RTCs

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