Karnataka

Gadag

CC/515/2008

Moulasab R Jaddimani - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, AIC Of India - Opp.Party(s)

C.B. Koppad

24 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GADAG
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONBehind Tahsildar Office, Basaveshwar Nagar, GADAG
 
Complaint Case No. CC/515/2008
( Date of Filing : 16 Sep 2008 )
 
1. Moulasab R Jaddimani
R/at: Jakkali, Tq: Ron, Dist: Gadag.
Gadag
Karnataka
2. Kanthayya Basayya Renukamath
R/at: Jakkali, Tq: Ron, Dist: Gadag.
Gadag
Karnataka
3. Hanamappa Fakeerappa Jangannavar
R/at: Jakkali, Tq: Ron, Dist: Gadag.
Gadag
Karnataka
4. Basappa Rudrappa Menasagi
R/at: Jakkali, Tq: Ron, Dist: Gadag.
Gadag
Karnataka
5. Krishnappa Mookappa Koppal
R/at: Jakkali, Tq: Ron, Dist: Gadag.
Gadag
Karnataka
6. Veerupaxappa Mookappa Koppal
R/at: Jakkali, Tq: Ron, Dist: Gadag.
Gadag
Karnataka
7. Smt.Surekha W/o Shiddanagouda Patil
R/at: Jakkali, Tq: Ron, Dist: Gadag.
Gadag
Karnataka
8. Rehamansab Khajesab Jakkali
R/at: Jakkali, Tq: Ron, Dist: Gadag.
Gadag
Karnataka
9. Chintappa Basappa Kammar LRs Rachappa Chintappa Kammar
R/at: Jakkali, Tq: Ron, Dist: Gadag
Gadag
Karnataka
10. Basappa Hanamappa Kuri
R/at: Jakkali, Tq: Ron, Dist: Gadag
Gadag
Karnataka
11. Mallappa Mahadevappa Maranbasari
R/at: Jakkali, Tq: Ron, Dist: Gadag
Gadag
Karnataka
12. Hanamantappa Narasappa Arer
R/at: Jakkali, Tq: Ron, Dist: Gadag
Gadag
Karnataka
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Managing Director, AIC Of India
Regional Office, Shankarnarayan Building, No.25, M.G.Road, Bangalore
Bangalore
2. The State of Karnataka, Rep by Deputy Commissioner
Gadag
Gadag
Karnataka
3. The Manager, Vyasaya Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd
Branch Jakkali, Tq: Ron, Dist: Gadag
Gadag
Karnataka
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. D.Y Basapur PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Sri Raju Namadev Metri MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Yashoda Bhaskar Patil MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 24 Aug 2022
Final Order / Judgement

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

Behind Tahasildar Office, Basaveshwar Nagar, GADAG

 
 

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.515/2008

DISPOSED ON 24th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

 

BEFORE:

 

 

HON'BLE MR. D.Y. BASAPUR, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,)

 

                                                                         PRESIDENT    

                                                 

 

HON'BLE Mrs. YASHODA BHASKAR PATIL,

                                                         B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) M.Ed.,

                                                                   WOMAN MEMBER             

                                               

HON'BLE Mr. RAJU. N. METRI, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,)

                                                                            MEMBER

                                                                   

 

Complainants     :-

1.

 

 

 

2.

 

 

3.

 

 

4.

 

 

 

5.

 

 

6.

 

 

 

7.

 

 

8.

 

 

9.

 

 

 

 

10.

 

 

11.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moulasab Rajesab Jiddimani

Age:66 Yrs, Occ:Agril.

 

Kantayya Basayya Renukamath,

 Age:48 Yrs, Occ:Agril

 

Hanmappa Fakirappa Jangannavar

Age:63 Yrs, Occ:Agril.

 

Basappa Rudrappa Menasagi

Age:66 Yrs, Occ:Agril.

 

Krishnappa Mukappa Koppal

Age:54 Yrs, Occ:Agril.

 

Virupakashappa Mukappa Koppal

Age:49 Yrs, Occ:Agril.

 

 

Smt. Surekha W/o Siddanagouda Patil

Age:34 yrs, Occ:Housewife.

 

 

Raimansab Khajesab Jakkali

Age:53 Yrs, Occ:Agril.

 

Chintappa Basappa Kammar

Since dead his LRs

Rachappa Chintappa Kammar.

Age:49 Yrs, Occ:Agril.

 

Basapppa Hanamappa Kuri.

Age:26 Yrs, Occ:Agril.

 

Mallappa Mahadevappa Maranbasari

(Dead)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hanamantappa Narasappa Arera

Age:48 Yrs, Occ:Agril.

 

 

All complainants are

R/o Jakkali Tq:Ron Dist:Gadag.

 

 

(Rep. by Sri.B.V.Neeraloti, Adv.)

V/s

Respondents    :-

 

 

 

 

 

1.





 

2.

 

 

 

 

3.

Managing Director,

Indian Agricultural Insurance Company,

Regional Office, Shankarnarayan Building, No.25, M.G.Road, Bangalore – 560 001.

 

(Rep. by Sri.K.V.Kerur, Advocate)

 

The Manager,

Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Bank,

R/o: Alur, Tq: Mundargi Dist: Gadag.        

      (Absent)

 

The Government of Karnataka,

Through its District Commissioner,

Gadag District, Gadag

 

 (Rep. by DGP, Gadag)

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 of Rs.67,030/- as shown in schedule with interest @ 12% 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  Jakkali village of Ron Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Sunflower for the year 2003-04 in 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 settle the claim.  So, Ops have committed the deficiency of service.  Hence, filed this complaint.

          2.       In pursuance 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 Sunflower during the year 2003-04 for 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.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 Rabi season 2003-04.  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 30.01.2009, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.1097/2009 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru,   the   same   came  to  be dismissed. OP No.1 preferred R.P.No.3558/09 before Hon’ble the National Commission, same came to be allowed  on 08.10.2009 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 29.01.2010 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.842/10 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and the same came to be allowed on 31.08.2010 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.304/16 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. Complainant
No. 11is reported as dead and no LRs are  brought on record.  Complainant No.1 is left the address notice served to complainant No.2 to 10 & 12, they are remained absent. Complainant No.1 filed affidavit on 06.01.2009 and examined as PW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-40.  DGP appeared for Op No.3 and filed the written version. Notice served to Op No.1 & 2 they are remained absent and not chosen to file affidavit evidence.

9.       No argument advanced  on both side, as no presentation made out.

          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?

 

  1. Whether the complainants prove that, they are          

entitled for relief?

 

  1. 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. PW-1 filed affidavits and reiterated contents of complaint. PW-1 has stated that, Complainants are resident of  Jakkali village of Ron Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Sunflower for the year 2003-04 in Rabi season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule para-4 through OP No.2. 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.

14. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-40 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 2003-04 for Rabi season there is no shortfall. 

15. 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 2003-04 and complaint filed after 5 years in the year 2008. Even complaint is barred by limitation. Complainant No.11 is reported as dead and their LRs are 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.

          16.     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.         

             17.  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 24th  day of August- 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 : Moulasab S/o Rajesab Jiddimani.

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1: Proposal form.

Ex.C-2 :Crop certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-3 : RTC.                                                                            

Ex.C-4 : Crop certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-5  : Proposal form.

Ex.C-6 :RTC

Ex.C-7 : Crop certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-8 : Proposal Form.

Ex.C-9 & 10: RTCs

Ex.C-11 : Crop certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-12: Proposal Form.

Ex.C-13 & 14: RTCs

Ex.C-12 to 14 :RTCs

Ex.C-15 : Crop certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-16 : Proposal form.

Ex.C-17 : RTC.

Ex.C-18: Crop certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-19: Proposal form.

Ex.C-20 to 22 :RTCs.

Ex.C-23 : Crop certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-24: Proposal form.

Ex.C-25: RTC

Ex.C-26: Crop certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-27: Proposal form..

Ex.C-28 : Crop certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-29: Proposal form.

Ex.C-30: RTC

Ex.C-31: Crop certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-32: Proposal form.

Ex.C-33: Crop certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-34: Proposal form

Ex.C-35: Crop certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-37 : Crop certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-38 : Proposal form.

Ex.C-39: D.C.Cirucular.

Ex.C-40 : Threshold Yield data for Kharif 2006 season.

 

 

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

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. D.Y Basapur]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sri Raju Namadev Metri]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Yashoda Bhaskar Patil]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.