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 of Rs.78,930/- 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  Kurahatti 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 & 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 Sunflower during the year 2003-04 for Rabi seasons.   As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was a shortfall and already settled the eligible claims.  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 20.11.2007, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru,   the   same   came  to  be dismissed. OP No.1 preferred R.P.No.3273/08 before Hon’ble the National Commission, 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.2313/10 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and the same came to be allowed on 13.12.2010 and remanded for fresh disposal.

7. After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties.  Complainant got amended the complaint in para-1 for the year 2003-04 instead of 2002-03. OP No.1 got amended the previous written version filed on 23.10.2007 and also filed written version on 25.09.2009 after amending the complaint and contended that there was no shortfall for the year 2003-04.  Again filed written version on 25.02.2016 and contended that there was no shortfall. After hearing, my predecessor again passed common judgment on 04.06.2016 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.2157/16 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and the same came to be allowed on 09.07.2019 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          8. After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties. Complainant
No. 7,8,10 and 11 are reported as dead and no LRs are  brought on record. Notice to Complainant No.6 is endorsed as unclaimed, who is called out absent and complainant No.3 and 4 are one of the same. Complainant No.1 to 5 and 9 filed affidavits are examined as CW-1 to CW-6  and got marked documents as Ex.C-1 to 53.  DGP appeared for Op No.3 and filed written version.  Notice served to Op No.1 & 2. KVK filed power for OP No.1 and OP No.2 called out absent. OP No.1 & 2 have not filed their affidavits and documents produced by Op No.1 are marked as Ex.OP No.1 & 2.

 9.      Heard the arguments on both side,

          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?

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-1 to PW-6 filed affidavits and reiterated contents of complaint. PW-1 to  PW-6 have stated that,  Complainants are resident of  Kurahatti 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. 

14. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-53  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.  So, there is no shortfall for the year 2003-04 of Sunflower for Rabi season. Ex.OP-1 letter issued by Dist. Statistical department reveals that crop cutting experiment reports submitted. Ex.OP-2 reveals that for the year 2003-04 crop cutting experiment conducted  as per report of statistical for the year 2002-03 there was a shortfall. Whereas, as per the report during the year 2003-04 there was no shortfall. Hence, there was no deficiency of service committed by the OPs.

15. The learned counsel for complainant argued that, OP No.1 admitted the in the written version dtd:23.10.2007 as there was a shortfall of 36 kg and 63 kg. In Subsequent written version stated that, there was no shortfall. Its true that, written version filed on 23.10.2007 admitted the shortfall as in complaint, claiming for the year 2002-03. There is no dispute regarding shortfall for the year 2002-03. In fact complainant claiming relief for the year 2003-04 by amending the complaint on  15.10.2015 after  7 years of the filing complaint. Thus, OP No.1 in written version filed after amendment contended that, there was no shortfall during the year 2003-04.

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 2007. Even complaint is barred by limitation. 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 the 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 26^th  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 : Venkavva Raddigoudra

PW-2 : Veeranna Shrishailappa Kuradagi

PW-3 :Hanamantappa Venkappa Palled

PW-4 : Veerappa Hanamappa Huyilagola

PW-5 : Balavva W/o Doddahanamappa Oli

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 : Legal notice

Ex.C-2:  Postal receipt.

Ex.C-3 & 4: Courier receipts.

Ex.C-5 to 15 : Proposal forms.

Ex.C-16 to 43 : RTcs

Ex.C-44 to 53: Bank receipts.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

         -NIL-

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.OP-1: Letter from Dist. Statistical department Gadag dtd:11.06.2009.

Ex.OP-2 : Crop cutting experiment report.

        (Shri Raju N. Metri)    (Shri. D.Y. Basapur)   (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT            WOMAN MEMBER