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 of crop loan insurance amount as shown in schedule para No.4 with interest @ 18% p.a, towards mental agony of Rs.5,000/- to each and cost of the proceedings.

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

          Complainants are resident of  Adrakatti village of Laxmeshwar Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Jowar, Sunflower, Onion, Greengram and Groundnut  for the year 2005-06 in Kharif/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 service of notice, OP No.1 appeared through their counsel.  OP No. 3 appeared through DGP and OP No.2 remained absent. OP No.1 & 3 filed their 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 of grown Jowar, Sunflower, Onion, Greengram and Groundnut   for the year 2005-06 for Kharif/Rabi season.   As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was a shortfall to the crop of Onion (RF) and Groundnut (RF) of Laxmeshwar Hobli and already settled the claim and there was no shortfall for other crops.   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 crops for  the  Kharif/Rabi season 2005-06.  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 30.09.2008, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.1675/09 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru,   the   same   came  to  be allowed on 19.11.2010.

          6. 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 has  again preferred an Appeal No.307/16 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.

           7. After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties. Notice served to complainant No.1,4,5,6 & 8 and they are remained absent. Notice of Complainant No.2,3 and 7 endorsed as dead and no LRs on bourght on record. Complainant No.8 filed affidavit and examined as CW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10.  Notices were served to OPs. KVK, Adv. filed power for OP No.1 and DGP filed MA  for OP No.3. OP No.2 is 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. CW-1 has  filed affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. CW-1 has stated that, complainants are resident of  Adrakatti village of Laxmeshwar Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Jowar, Sunflower, Onion, Greengram and Groundnut  for the year 2005-06 in Kharif/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.

13. Ex.C-1 to Ex.10 are documents not disputed by the Ops. In written version OP No.1 specifically stated that, As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was a shortfall to the crop of Onion (RF) and Groundnut (RF) of Laxmeshwar Hobli and already settled the claim and there was no shortfall for other crops.   So, there is no deficiency of service.

14. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 clearly goes to show that, complainants owners of their lands and paid the premium. But Op No.1 already settled the claim for Onion and Groundnut (RF) of Laxmeshwar Hobli and there was no shortfall for other crops. In complaint specifically admitted the compensation already received for shortfall crops as shown in the schedule. However, complainants are claiming entire assured amount after deducting already received the claim amount. So, complainants are entitled the entire assured amount as per guidelines. They are eligible only for  shortfall claiming amount. Even though, in schedule specifically deducted the claim amount received by them and claiming for remaining difference amount. 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 and not settled the claim.

          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 20^th  day of October- 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 :  Shiddappa Fakkirappa Abanooru

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1to 8: Proposal forms.

Ex.C-9 : Legal notice.

Ex.C-10 : Letter from Dist. Statistical Officer Gadag Dtd:29.09.2012.

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