DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, | Behind Tahasildar Office, Basaveshwar Nagar, GADAG |
|
| |
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.670/2008 DISPOSED ON 12th DAY OF SEPTEMBER-2022 |
|
|
| |
BEFORE: | | | HON'BLE MR. D.Y. BASAPUR, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) PRESIDENT 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. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. | Basanagouda Adiveppa Hooligeri (Dead) Rajesab Ameenasab Chavadi (Dead) Smt. Gouravva W/o Ningappa Damami Virupakshappa Fakkirappa Varad Basavantappa Fakkirappa Varad Shivanagouda Basanagoud Hoolageri Paravatevva W/o Shankaragouda Immangoudar Ganapati Balappa Vajrangi (Dead) Raimanasab Imamasab Mullanavar (Dead) Ningangouda Shiddangouda Karigoudar Kashimsab Imamasab Mullanavar Veerabhadrappa Anandappa Varad Hemanna Basappa Chinivalad Basappa Yallappa Galeppanavar Smt. Shivanavva W/o Basappagouda Tegginkeri. Mahantesh Mahadevappa Arbanad Jayapalappa Ramabadrappa Vajrang Basavaraj Adiveppa Damami Adiveppa Basateppa Damami (Dead) Shekhappa Holeyappa Sakrappanavar All Complainants Age:Major Occ: Agril, R/o Konnur, Tq: Naragund (Rep. by Sri.N.S.Jalawadagi, Adv.) |
V/s
Respondents :- | 1.
2. 3. | The Officer Incharge, Indian Agricultural Insurance Company, Regional Office, Shankarnarayan Building, No.25, M.G.Road, Bangalore – 560 001. (Rep. by Sri.K.V. Kerur, Advocate) The Government of Karnataka, Through its District Commissioner, Gadag District, Gadag (Rep. by DGP, Gadag) The Manager, Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Bank, R/o: Konnur, Tq: Naragund Dist: Gadag. (Absent) |
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 Konnur village of Naragund Taluk Dist:Gadag. They have grown Bengalgram for the year 2003-04 in 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 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 crop Bengalgram 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.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 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 12.03.2009, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation. OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.1954/2009 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, the same came to be dismissed. OP No.1 preferred R.P. No.2393-2394/08 before Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the same came to be allowed 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 23.03.2010 and awarded compensation. Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.1628/10 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and the same came to be allowed on 30.09.2010 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 02.12.2015 and awarded compensation. Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.150/16 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.1,2,8,9 and 19 are reported as dead, no LRs are brought on record. Notice served to Complainant. No.6,7 10 to 17 and 20 called out absent. Complainant No.1 filed affidavit and examined as CW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-65. Notice served to OP No.1 to 3. DGP filed memo of appearance for OP No.2 and written version, taken as no further evidence. K.V.K. Adv. for OP No.1 filed affidavit and examined as RW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5. OP No.3 is remained absent and not chosen to file affidavit evidence.
9. Heard, arguments on both sides.
10. The points for consideration to us are as under:
- Whether the complainants prove that, there is a deficiency in service by the OPs?
- Whether the complainants prove that, they are
entitled for relief?
- 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 filed affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. CW-1 has stated that, Complainants are resident of Konnur village of Naragund Taluk Dist:Gadag. They have grown Bengalgram for the year 2003-04 in 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.
14. RW-1 has filed affidavit and reiterated the written version filed by OP No.1. RW-1 has stated that, as per data furnished by statistical department, there was no shortfall. Hence, the question of settled the claim does not arise and no deficiency of service committed by OP No.1.
15. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-65 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. Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 reveals that OPs adopted the crop cutting experiments and submitted the data. 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.
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 2003-04 and complaint filed after 4 years in the year 2008. Even complaint is barred by limitation. Complainant No. 1,2,8,9 and 19 are 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 relief. 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 relief. 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 12th day of September- 2022)
(Shri Raju N. Metri) (Shri. D.Y. Basapur)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
-: ANNEXURE :-
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S:
PW-1 : Basanagouda Adiveppa Hooligeri
a
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S
Ex.C-1: Postal acknowledgment.
Ex.C-2 to 5 : Legal notices.
Ex.C-6 : Copy of settlement of claims and payment for Rabi-2003-04 dtd:27.05.2005.
Ex.C-7 : Rab-2003-04 crop insurance details issued by Bank.
Ex.C-8 to 28 : Crop certificates issued by village accountant.
Ex.C-29 to 49: Proposal forms
Ex.C-50 to 65: RTCs
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:
RW-1 : Praveen Kumar B.R.
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:
Ex.R-1 : Scheme & Guidelines.
Ex.R-2 : Govt. Circular Rab-2003-04.
Ex.R-3 : Copy of settlement of claims and payment for Rabi-2003-04 dtd:27.05.2005.
Ex.R-4 : Assessed yield Rabi-2003-04.
Ex.C-5: Details of past 5 years assessed yield data-District/Taluka/Hoble wise.
(Shri Raju N. Metri) (Shri. D.Y. Basapur)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
