DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, | Behind Tahasildar Office, Basaveshwar Nagar, GADAG |
|
| |
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.445/2008 DISPOSED ON 6th DAY OF JULY 2022 |
|
|
| |
BEFORE: | | | HON'BLE MR. D.Y. BASAPUR, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) PRESIDENT | | HON'BLE Mrs. YASHODA BHASKAR PATIL, WOMAN MEMBER B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) M.Ed., HON'BLE Mr. RAJU. N. METRI, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) MEMBER |
|
COMPLAINT NO.445/2008
Complainants :- | 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. | Shri Ravikumar Basappa Palled, Age: 42 Years, Mallawwa W/o Basappa Mugali, Age: 65 Years, (dead) Sharanappa Mallappa Mugali, Age: 52 Years, (dead) Jayadevappa Basayya Renukamath, Age: 52 Years, (dead) Mahantayya Basayya Renukamath, Age: 45 Years, Subhas Anjanappa Kelagadi, Ae: 45 Years, Muttanna Harishchandra Hullur, Age: 52 Years, Rudrappa Ayyapa Doddameti, Age: 34 Years, Dharmappa Kedarappa Arer, Age: 64 Yrs., Ramesh Andanappa Palled, Age: 31 Yrs., Dilip Virupaxappa Meti, Age: 30 Years, Gurulingayya Shekharappa Mantayyanamath, Age: 39 Years, Andanappa Bheemappa Koppad, Age: 42 Years, Bheemappa Andanappa Koppad, Age: 63 Years, Ananappa Hanamappa Gubbenakoppa, Age: 64 Years, Shivappa Sangappa Wali, Age: 43 Years,(dead) Ashok Ningappa Jogi, Ag: 48 Years, Gurappa Kalakappa Ronad, Age: 49 Years, Ayyappa Basappa Meti, Age: 64 Years, (dead) Channappa Maribasappa Madiwalar, Age: 52 Years, All Complainants Occ: Agricukture, R/at: Jakkali, Tq: Ron, & Dist: Gadag. (Rep. by Sri.B.V. Neerloti, Adv.) |
V/s
Respondents :- | 1.
2. 3. | The Managing Director, Indian Agricultural Insurance Company, Shankarnarayan Building, No.25, M.G.Road, Bangalore – 560 001. (Rep. by Sri.K.V.Kerur, Advocate) The Manager, Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Bank, Branch Jakkali, Tq: Ron, 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 crop loan insurance for Rs.2,12,358/- with interest @ 12% p.a, towards mental agony Rs.5,000/- each and cost of the proceedings.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
Complainants are resident of Jakkali village of Ron Taluk. They have grown Greengram for the year 2005-06 in Khariff season and paid the premium amount through OP No.2. The Government declared drought and waived the revenue tax of the Agricultural lands. However, OPs did not pay the insured amount. Complainants have separately mentioned the extent of land, premium amount, insurance amount, season and name of crop in detail.
3. In pursuance of notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written version. OP No.2 remained absent.
4. The brief facts of the written version filed by OP No.1 are as under:
OP No.1 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants claimed for the loss of their crop during the Khariff season 2005-06. As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall in the yield to Greengram (RF) crops, Ron Hobli of Gadag District during Khariff-2005-06 season. In the written version it is specifically mentioned as threshold yield is 88, assessed yield is 266 and shortfall is Nil. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. To prove the case, complainant No.1 filed affidavit on 04.11.2008.
6. After hearing on merit, complaint is partly allowed in common judgment in Complaint Nos.323/2008, 328/2008, 377/2008, 378/2008, 442/2008 to 444/2008 along with this complaint on 13.11.2008 and awarded compensation. OP No.1 challenged the judgment in Appeal No.1882/2009 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, the same came to be allowed on 10.09.2009 and remanded for fresh disposal. Again my predecessor passed a common judgment in Complaint Nos.377/2008, 378/2008, 442/2008 to 444/2008 along with this complaint on 28.05.2010 and awarded compensation. OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.2688/2010 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, the same came to be allowed on 28.10.2010. After receipt of the records, parties appeared through their counsel and OP No.3, the Deputy Commissioner, Gadag was impleaded as a party and who appeared through DGP and submitted that, objection filed to impleading IA, may be treated as objection to the main petition.
7. The brief facts of the objection filed by OP No.3 to the interim application are as under:
OP No.3 contended that, petition is not maintainable. As per the columns and guidelines of the Government, the Department of Finance and Statistics submitted the record to the Commission. This OP is not a consumer, the duty of the OP No.3 is only a supervision of other OPs. Hence, OP No.3 is neither necessary nor a proper party.
8. Notice issued to D.S.O to produce the document. Accordingly, supplied the documents to counsel for complainant on 07.12.2012.
9. After hearing, my predecessor again passed common judgment in Complaint Nos.442/2008 to 444/2008 and 446/2008 along with this case on 30.12.2015 and awarded compensation. Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.397/2016 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore and the same came to be allowed on 03.02.2020 and remanded for re-consideration.
10. After receipt of the records, notice was issued to the parties. Affidavit filed by complainant on 04.11.2008 is examined as CW-1 and the documents produced by complainants are marked as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-89. Sri. KVK, Advocate for OP No.1 and DGP filed memo of appearance for OP No.3 and written version. OP No.2 remained absent.
12. The brief facts of the written version filed by OP No.3 are as under:
OP No.3 contended that, petition is not maintainable as per the columns and guidelines of the Government. The Department of Finance and Statistics submitted the record to the Commission. This OP is not a consumer, the duty of the OP No.2 is only a supervision of other OPs.
13. In spite of service of notice, complainant No.5 to 15, 17, 18 and 20 remained absent and they have not chosen to file affidavit evidence. Notice of complainant No.2 to 4, 16 and 19 are reported as dead. Hence, taken as no further evidence of the complainants and documents produced by OP No.1 is marked as Ex.OP-1.
14. Heard the arguments. The counsel for OP No.1 filed written arguments on 25.01.2012.
15. 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?
16. 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
17. Point No.1 & 2:- The points are taken together to avoid the repetition of facts.
18. On careful perusal of the materials placed before us, complainant No.1 filed affidavit in-lieu of his examination in chief and examined as CW-1
and reiterated the contents of the complaint. CW-1 has stated that, Complainants are resident of Jakkali village of Ron Taluk. They have grown Greengram for the year 2005-06 in Khariff season and paid the premium amount through OP No.2. The Government declared drought and waived the revenue tax of the Agricultural lands. However, OPs did not pay the insurance amount.
19. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-89, the proposal forms and RTCs are not disputed by the OPs. The main contention taken by the OP No.1 in written version is that, complainants claimed for the loss of their crop during the Khariff season 2005-06. As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall in the yield and Greengram (RF) crops, Ron Hobli of Gadag District during Khariff-2005-06 season and in the written version it is specifically mentioned as threshold yield is 88, assessed yield is 266 and shortfall is Nil.
20. For the above, threshold yield is 88 for the khariff season 2005-06 to the Greengram crop in Ron Hobli and assessed yield is 266. Hence, in shortfall column it is shown as Nil. Of course, OP No.1 has not filed affidavit evidence. However, Ex.OP-1 issued by the Director of Economics and Statistics, Rashtriya Krishi Bheema Yojana for assessed year 2005-06 reveals that, in Ron Hobli experiment planned-10, enlarged-10 and assessed yield is 266. So, the contention taken by OP No.1 that, there is no shortfall during the year 2005-06 Khariff season for Greengram crop is proved.
21. In the appeal, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that, affidavit of each complainant shall be taken and reconsider afresh. In spite of service of notice, complainants did not appear and file their affidavit evidence or documents. So also, LRs of some of the complainants who are reported as dead subsequent to the remand have also not chosen to file their affidavit evidence. The only evidence of complainant No.1, CW-1 is available. Mere filing of complaint, without filing the affidavit evidence of complainant No.2 to 20 are not entitled for the relief as per the observation made by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Even though sole complainant No.1 filed affidavit evidence, but not proved his case that, there was a shortfall during the year 2005-06 for Khariff season for Greengram crop. Further, complaint is filed after lapse of the statutory period of two years limitation.
22. For the above, complainants have failed to prove their case. Hence, they are not entitled for the relief as sought for in the complaint. Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 and 2 in Negative.
23. 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.
Office is directed to return the amount to the OPs deposited in this case, if OPs failed to receive the amount, amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposit.
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 6th day of July- 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: Ravikumar Basappa Palleda
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S
Ex.C-1:Proposal form
Ex.C-2: Crop certificate
Ex.C-3:Proposal form
Ex.C-4: Crop certificate
Ex.C-7 to 8: RTCs
Ex.C-9: Crop certificate
Ex.C-10 & 11: RTCs
Ex.C-12:Proposal form
Ex.C-13: Crop certificate
Ex.C-14 & 15: RTCs
Ex.C-16:Proposal form
Ex.C-17: Crop certificate
Ex.C-18 & 19: RTCs
Ex.C-20:Proposal form
Ex.C-21: Crop certificate
Ex.C-22 to 24: RTCs
Ex.C-25: Proposal form
Ex.C-26: RTC
Ex.C-27: Crop certificate
Ex.C-28: RTC
Ex.C-29: Proposal form
Ex.C-30: Crop certificate
Ex.C-31 & 32: RTCs
Ex.C-33:Proposal form
Ex.C-34:Crop certificate
Ex.C-35: RTC
Ex.C-36:Proposal form
Ex.C-37: Crop certificate
Ex.C-38:Proposal form
Ex.C-39: Crop certificate
Ex.C-40:Proposal form
Ex.C-41: Crop certificate
Ex.C-42: RTC
Ex.C-43:Proposal form
Ex.C-44: Crop certificate
Ex.C-45: RTC
Ex.C-46:Proposal form
Ex.C-47: Crop certificate
Ex.C-48 & 49: RTC
Ex.C-50:Proposal form
Ex.C-51 Crop certificate
Ex.C-52:Proposal form
Ex.C-53: Crop certificate
Ex.C-54 to 64 : RTCs
Ex.C-65:Proposal form
Ex.C-66: Crop certificate
Ex.C-67 to 69: RTCs
Ex.C-70:Proposal form
Ex.C-71: Crop certificate
Ex.C-72: Crop certificate
Ex.C-73 to 75:Proposal forms
Ex.C-76 & 77: Crop Certificates
Ex.C-78 to 81: RTCs
Ex.C-82: Proposal form
Ex.C-83: Crop certificate
Ex.C-84 & 85: RTCs
Ex.C-86:Proposal form
Ex.C-87: Crop certificate
Ex.C-88 & 89: RTCs.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:
-NIL-
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:
Ex.OP-1: Assessed yield Report for 2005-06 Khariff by Directorate of Economics and Statistics.
(Shri Raju N. Metri) (Shri. D.Y. Basapur) (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)
MEMBER PRESIDENT WOMAN MEMBER
