V/s

JUDGEMENT

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. D.Y. BASAPUR, PRESIDENT

          The complainant has filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for recovery of crop insurance amount of Rs.30,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a, towards mental agony of Rs.5,000/- and cost of the complaint.

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

          Complainant is resident of Savadi village of RonTaluk Dist:Gadag.  He had sown Onion and Greengram for the year 2005-06 in Kharif season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule through OP No.2. Due to shortage of rain, complainant has 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 & 2 appeared through counsel. Subsequently Op No.3 is impleaded appeared through DGP.. 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, complainant has  claimed for the loss of  his crops during the Kharif seasons 2005-06.  As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall to the said crops in Kharif season. There is no deficiency  of service committed by this OP. 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 has denied the various allegations and contended that, complainant has  claimed for the loss of his crops during the Rabi season 2005-06.  OP No.2 stated that, they are acting as a collecting agent and mediator between the complainant and OP No.1, they have received the proposal forms, premium amount and submitted to OP No.1.  They are not responsible and there is no deficiency of service committed by OP No.2. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5. 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, complainant has claimed for the loss of his crops during the Kharif season 2005-06. 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.

          6.       After hearing, my predecessor, passed common judgment on 21.01.2009 and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes   Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru, in Appeal the   same   came  to  be allowed on 27.08.2009 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          7.       After receipt of the records, notices were issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor, again passed judgment on 28.05.2010 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 has again preferred an Appeal No.2744/10 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, notices were issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor, again passed common judgment on 30.12.2015 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 has again preferred in Appeal No.401/16 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, notices were issued to the parties. Notice was served to complainant and Ops.  Complainant filed affidavit and examined as PW-1  and got marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7.   KVK, Adv. filed power for OP No.1 and NSB, Adv. filed power  for OP No.2. DGP filed M/A and written version of OP No.3. Ops have not chosen to file affidavit evidence and documents were marked as Ex.Op-1 and Ex.Op-2.

10.     OP No.1 filed written arguments. No argument advanced complainant and Op No.1. Counsel for Op No.2 and DGP for Op No.3 argued.  

          11.     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?

       12.   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

              13.   Point No.1 & 2:- The points are taken together to avoid the repetition of facts.

            14.   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 has filed affidavits and reiterated contents of complaint. PW-1 has stated that, Complainant is resident of Savadi village of RonTaluk Dist:Gadag.  He had sown Onion and Greengram for the year 2005-06 in Kharif season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule through OP No.2. Due to shortage of rain, complainant has suffered loss.  Inspite of repeated request to Ops, they did not settle the claim.  So, Ops have committed the deficiency of service. 

15. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C- 7  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. In the written version filed by Op No.1 shown that for Onion(RF) Threshold yield is 1609, Assessed yield is 5219 and shortfall is NIL. And for Greengram(RF) Threshold yield is 67, Assessed yield is 106 and shortfall is NIL.  for the year 2005-06 for Kharif season of Ron Hobli. So. there is no shortfall for both crops.  Ex.OP-1 & Ex.Op-2 issued by bank for premium amount paid by the complainant.

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 2005-06 and complaint filed after 3 years in the year 2008. Without proving the case, with affidavit evidence and documents, complainant is  not entitled the reliefs. Mere allegation made in the complaint, without producing documentary evidence to show that there is a shortfall. For the above, complainant has failed to prove that OPs have committed deficiency of service and he is entitled for the reliefs.   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.

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  19^th   day of November-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 Sangappa Kanti

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1  : Certificate issued by Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank.Savadi.

Ex.C-2 & 3 : RTCs

Ex.C-4: Letter issued by Dist. Statistical Officer, Gadag dtd:20.10.2012.

Ex.C-5 to  7: Crop cutting experiment form No.II.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

         -NIL-

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.Op-1& 2 : Crop Insurance statements.

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

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT            WOMAN MEMBER