DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, | Behind Tahasildar Office, Basaveshwar Nagar, GADAG |
|
| |
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.604/2008 DISPOSED ON 30th DAY OF JULY 2022 |
|
|
| |
BEFORE: | | | HON'BLE MR. D.Y. BASAPUR, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) PRESIDENT | | HON'BLE Mrs. YASHODA BHASKAR PATIL, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) M.Ed., WOMAN MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. RAJU. N. METRI, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) MEMBER |
|
Complainants :- | 1. 2 3 4 5 6 6 a) 6 b) 6 c) 6 d) | Veerappa Kalakappa Honawad Age:39 Yrs, Basavaraj Mallappa Kushtagi Age:26 Yrs, Prema Mallappa Kushtagi Age:23 Yrs, Bavanneppa Bheemappa Kushtagi Age:39 Yrs, Kalakappa Veerappa Dharamayat, Age:23 Yrs, Veerappa Basappa Dharamayat, His Lrs. Kalakavva Andappa Kalkonnavar, Age:48 Yrs, Lakshmavva Balappa Kalakonnavar, Age:45 yrs, Manjunath Veerappa Dharamayat Age:42 Yrs, Kalakappa Veerappa Dharamayat Age: 32 Yrs, Occ:Agril All Complainants Occ: Agriculturists, R/at: Naregal, Tq: Ron, & Dist: Gadag. (Rep. by Sri.R.K.Honawad, Adv.) |
V/s
Respondents :- | 1.
2. 3. | Officer/Incharge Agriculture insurance company, Shankarnaryan Building-25 M.G.Road, Bangalore. (Rep. by Sri.K.V. Kerur, Advocate) The Manager, Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank, Br. Naregal, Naregal Tq:Ron Dist:Gadag. (In person) 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 recovery crop loan insurance amount as shown in schedule with interest @ 18% p.a, towards mental agony Rs.2,000/- each and cost of the proceedings of Rs.2,000/- each.
1. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
Complainants are resident of Naregal village of Ron Taluk. They have grown Jowar, Wheat and Bengalgram, for the year 2006-07 in Rabi 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. Inspite of repeated request to Ops did not settle the claim. Ops have committed the deficiency of service. Inspite of request to the 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.2 appeared in person, Op No.3 appeared through DGP and Op No.1 to 3 filed written version.
3. 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 have claimed for the loss of their crop Jowar, Wheat and Bengalgram during the Rabi seasons 2006-07. As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was shortfall to the said crops in Rabi season. Already settled the claim for Jowar, Wheat and Bengal-gram for shortfall amount. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The brief facts of the 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 seasons 2006-07. After collecting the premium submitted to OP No.1 and also after shortfall amount for Jowar, Wheat and Bengalgram to the Rabi season is credited to complainants account. So there is no deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. To prove the case, complainant No.2 filed affidavit on 06.02.2009.
6. After hearing, complaint is partly allowed in common judgment in Complaint Nos.613/08 and 641/08 along with this complaint on 22.09.2009 and awarded compensation. OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.1990/09 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, the same came to be allowed on 31.08.2009 and remanded for fresh disposal.
7. After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties. After hearing, my predecessor again passed common judgment in CC.613/08 and 641/08 along with this case on 31.05.2010 and awarded compensation. Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.2656/2010 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore and the same came to be allowed on 28.10.2010 and remanded for fresh disposal.
8. After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties. After hearing, my predecessor again passed common judgment in CC 356/07, 378/08 and 232/09 along with this complaint on 14.12.2015 and awarded compensation. Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.285/16 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.
9. After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties. complainant No.6 is reported as dead and their LRs brought on record. DGP appeared through for Op No.3 and filed the written version.
10. The brief facts of the 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 2006-07. OP No.3 is not a consumer as only supervising power over the other Ops. So there is no deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
11. Affidavit filed by complainant No.1 on 03.03.2021, complainant No.2 filed on 06.02.2009 complainant No.3 & 4 on 08.02.2021, complainant No.5 & 6 a) filed affidavit on 22.06.2022 and examined as PW-1 to 6 and got marked documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-17 documents produced by OP No.1 are got marked as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5.
12. Heard the arguments on both side.
13. 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?
14. 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
15. Point No.1 & 2:- The points are taken together to avoid the repetition of facts.
16. On careful perusal of the materials placed before us, PW-1 to 6 filed affidavits in-lieu of their examination in chief and reiterated the contents of the complaint. PW-1 to 6 have stated that, complainants are resident of Naregal village of Ron Taluk. They have grown Jowar, Wheat and Bengalgram, for the year 2006-07 in Rabi 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. Inspite of repeated request to Ops did not settle the claim. Ops have committed the deficiency of service. Inspite of request to the Ops, they did not settle the claim. So Ops have committed the deficiency of service.
17. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-17, the proposal forms and RTCs and other documents are not disputed by the OPs. Even though complainants have admitted in the schedule, para-4 that shortfall amount credited to their accounts. However, they have claiming remaining assured amount after deducting the actually premium amount issued by them. As per guidelines, OP No.1 is not liable to pay 100% percentage of shortfall amount. Even no cause of action arose to file this complaint as there is no deficiency of service committed by Ops.
18. 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.
19. 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 30th 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: Veerappa S/o Kalakappa Honawad.
PW-2: Basavaraj Mallappa Kushtagi
PW-3: Prema Mallappa Kushtagi.
PW-4: Basavanneppa Bheemppa Kushtagi.
Pw-5 : Kalakappa S/o Veerappa Dharamayat
PW-6: Kalakappa Veerappa Dharamayat.
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S
Ex.C-1 to 15 : RTCs
Ex.C-16: Death certificate.
Ex.C-17: LRs certificate.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:
NIL
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:
Ex.OP-1 :Copy of Scheme & guidelines.
Ex.OP-2 :Copy of instruction to Nodal Banks.
Ex.Op-3 :Copy of insurance seed, Bangalore dtd:28.06.2019.
Ex.Op-4: Copy of details past 5 year assessed yield data.
Ex.Op-5: Copy of settlement of claim for Rabi 2003-04 by the OP No.1.
(Shri Raju N. Metri) (Shri. D.Y. Basapur) (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)
MEMBER PRESIDENT WOMAN MEMBER
