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 crop loan insurance amount as shown in schedule with interest @ 18% p.a, from the date of filing of the complaint, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony each and cost of the proceedings.

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

          Complainants are resident of Mevundi village of Mundaragi 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.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 crop  of Sunflower for the year 2003-04 for Rabi 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 crop for 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 09.07.2008, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.1353/2009 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bangalore,   the   same   came  to  be dismissed. Op No.1 has preferred R.P No.2829/09 before Hon’ble National Commission, and same came to be allowed on 18.08.2009 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 has again preferred an Appeal No.830/10 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore 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 02.12.2015 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 has again preferred an Appeal No.125/16 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore 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.3,7,9 11 to 13 are reported as dead and  no LRs are brought on record. Notice served to complainant No.4 to 6, 8 & 10 and they are remained absent.   Complainant No. filed affidavit and examined as PW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12. Notice served to Op No.1 to 3. K.V.K. Adv. filed power for  OP No. DGP filed M/A for  Op No.2 and the written version. OP No.3 is remained absent. Op No.1 to 3not chosen to file affidavit evidence.

9.       Heard, arguments on  both sides.

          10.     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?

       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-filed affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. PW-1 has stated that,  complainants are resident of Mevundi village of Mundaragi 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.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. 

14. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12  RTCs and other documents are not disputed 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.  As per assessed yield data issued by statistical department for the year 2003-04 Dambal Hobli reveals that, planned 20 analyzed and yield 305. So, there was no shortfall for the sunflower during the year 2003-04. 

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 4 years in the year 2008. Even complaint is barred by limitation. Complainant No.3,7,9 11 to 13 are reported as dead and no LRs are 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.

          16.     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.         

             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, directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Commission on this 17^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 : Shri. Ningappa Veerappa Chalageri

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1to 12: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