DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, | Behind Tahasildar Office, Basaveshwar Nagar, GADAG |
|
|
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.235/2006 DISPOSED ON 27th 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. 2(a) 2(b) 2(c) 2(d) 2(e) | Smt. Gouravva W/o Malleshappa Mullal (Dead) Smt,. Ningavva W/o Goolappa Alur, (Dead) Shivaputrappa S/o Goolappa Alur, Age:60 Yrs, Occ:Coolie. R/o Hubli recently residing at Betageri-Gadag. Mallappa S/o Goolappa Alur, Age:50 Yrs. Occ:Private work. R/o Kuknoor Tal:Yalaburga. Shekappa S/o Goolappa Alur, Age:38 Yrs. Occ:Coolie. R/o Manjunath Nagar, TalP:Gadag. Sharanappa S/o Goolappa Alur, Age:36 Yrs, Occ:Coolie. R/o Vasantsingh Jamadar Nagar, Tq:Gadag. Kalakappa S/o Goolappa Alur, Age:33 Yrs, Occ:Coolie. R/o Balaji Road, Betageri-Gadag. (Rep. by Smt. S.B.Patil, Advocate) |
V/s
Respondents :- | 1.
2. 3. | The Regional Manager/The Officer In-charge, Indian Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd.,, Regional Office, (Karnataka), I Floor, Shankarnarayan Building, No.25, M.G.Road, Bangalore – 560 001. (Rep. by Sri.K.V. Kerur, Advocate) The Branch Manager, Malaprabha Grameen Bank Neregall Branch Naregall Tal:Ron Dist:Gadag. (Rep. by Sri.V.H.Merwade, Advocate) The Government of Karnataka, Representerd by Deputy Commissioner, Gadag District, Gadag. (DGP, Gadag) |
|
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. RAJU. NAMADEV METRI: MEMBER
The complainants have filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for crop claiming crop loan insurance claim as shown in complaint with interest @ 12% p.a, compensation. Towards mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- each.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are under:
Complainants are stated that, they have paid crop insurance sowed Jowar (Irri) and Bengalgram (Irri) Crop for Rabi-2002-03 and 2003-04 season Complainants have mentioned in details regarding name of crop, Survey number, the extent of premium assured amount, the amount paid by insurance company and difference amount, due to failure of rain in schedule. The Govt. declared drought and directed to pay the compensation. But, the Ops did not pay the assured amount. Hence, filed this complaint.
3. After registering the case, notice was issued to Ops. Counsel for OP No.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and OP No.3 appeared through DGP. OP No.1 to 3 have filed their written versions.
4. The brief facts of the written version filed by OP No.1 are as under:
OP No.1 denied the various allegations in the complaint. The OP No.1 contended that, as per NAIS claims will be disbursed through Nodal Bank as per shortfall in the notified area. As per the yield data issued by Director of Economic and statistic for the year Rabi 2002-03 and 2003-04 there is a shortfall. Accordingly, they have already settled all eligible claims through nodal Banks. Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.
5. The brief facts of the written version filed by OP No.2 are as under:
OP No.2 denied the contention of the complaint and contended that complainants are not a consumer under C.P. Act 1986. The duty of the OP No.2 is only to collect the premium and submit to insurance Company. Hence, Op No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
6. The brief facts of the written version filed by OP No.3 are as under:
OP No.3 denied the contention of the complaint and contended that complainants are not a consumer under C.P.Act 1986. The duty of the OP No.3 is of supervision and informing about the guidelines of this scheme to the consumers to get the benefits of the said scheme and there is no any consideration between them and they are not consumer of OP No.3. Hence, not liable to pay compensation and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
7. To prove the case, complainant No.1 & 2 filed affidavits on 02.04.2007 and 24.09.2009 and examined as PW-1 and 2 got marked documents as
Ex.C-1 to Ex. C-16. No affidavit evidence are examined by the Ops and their documents are marked as Ex.OP -1 to Ex.OP-5.
8. The counsel for OP No.1 filed written arguments. After hearing the argument order was passed, partly allowed and awarded the compensation. OP No.1 preferred before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalure an appeal No.2446/07 same is came to be dismissed on 31.10.2007. Op No.1 preferred R.P. No.1481/08 before Hon’ble National Consumer Redresal Commission New, Delhi, same came to be allowed and set aside the order passed by State Commission and remanded for fresh disposal to this Commission.
9. After receipt of the order, notice was issued to the parties and again passed the order on 31.01.2010, partly allowed and awarded the compensation. OP No.1 again preferred an appeal No.788/10 before State Commission, Bangalure, same came to be allowed on 04.09.2010 and was remanded for fresh disposal.
10. After receipt of the record, again passed order on 14.12.2015, partly allowed and awarded the compensation. Again OP No.1 preferred an appeal No.279/16 before Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalure, same came to be allowed and was remanded for fresh disposal.
11. After receipt of record, notice was issued to parties, notice served to complainant No.2 (a) to 2 (e). SBP, Adv. filed power for 2 (b) and 2(e). complainant 2 (c) remained absent. Notice of complainant No.1 reported as dead and no LRs are brought on record. The affidavit of complainant No.1 & 2 filed on 02.04.2007 and 24.09.2009 examined as PW-1 & 2 marked documents as Ex.C-1 to C-16 and taken as no evidence of complainant No.2 (a) to 2 (e). KVK Adv. filed power for OP No.1 and Op No.2 appeared through advocate. DGP filed memo of appearance to OP No.3 and filed written version. No affidavit evidence examined filed by the Ops and their documents are marked as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5.
12. Heard the arguments on both sides.
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 the Commission, complainant No.1 & 2 filed affidavits and reiterated the contents of the affidavits. PW-1 & 2 have stated that they are Agriculturists, they have paid crop insurance for crop of Jowar (Irri) and Bengalgram (Irri) for the year 2002-03 and 2003-04 of Rabi season. Complainants have mentioned in details regarding name of crop, Survey number, the extent of premium and assured amount, the amount paid by insurance company and difference amount, due to failure of rain in that years. The Govt. declared drought and directed to pay the compensation. But, the Ops did not pay the assured amount.
17. Ex.C-1 to 16, Bank receipts, RTC’s, Applications, Certificates, Passbooks, notification issued by Deputy Commissioner, Gadag reveals that for the year 2002-03 and 2003-04 due to failure of rain got declared for Rabi season as drought, but the crop cutting experiment report data issued by District Statistical Department, it reveals that for the year 2002-03 and 2003-04 as per the experiment there was a shortfall.
18. Ex.C-16 regarding drought declared by Govt. is not helpful to the complainants. If drought is declared for a particular area, Taluka or District the Government releases the compensation which is based on the instruction given by the revenue department of each state keeping the view local condition to all farmers including non-insurer. So far as crop insurance is concerned, as per guidelines. Ex.OP-1 endorsement, Ex.OP-2 Form No.8, Ex.OP-3 to 5 Proposal forms are not disputed. Taken into consideration the 7 years yield of crop, excluding two years minimum yield and taking into average of 5 years
its decided on the basis of crop cutting experiment process. All these documents clearly goes to show that there was a shortfall and already Ops have settled the compensation. It is not disputed by the complainants as shown in schedule of the complaint. Wherein, specifically mentioned the extent, premium paid amount, assured amount insured amount paid by OP No.1 as average of shortfall.
19. The main contention of complainant is that, after deducting shortfall amount out of insured amount they are entitled for the difference amount. Complainants are not entitled for the entire assured amount as per guidelines. They are entitled only for the shortfall amount. Such being the case, there is no deficiency of service committed by the Ops as they have already settled the amount for shortfall to each complainants. No cause of action arose to file the complaint. Complainants have specifically mentioned the amount credited to their account by the OPs.
20. Therefore, it is clear that OP No.1 has deposited the crop insurance amount as per the shortfall and guidelines of the scheme. The complainants No.1 & 2 have failed to prove that they are entitled for the balance of the assured amount and there is deficiency of service committed by Ops.
21. For the reasons stated in the above paras, complainants have failed to prove that, the Ops have committed the deficiency of service. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 & 2 in the negative.
22. POINT NO. 3: In the result, we pass the following:
//O R D E R//
The complaint filed by the complainants U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hereby 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, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 27th 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: Smt. Gouravva W/o Malleshappa Mullal
PW-2: Smt. Ningavva W/o Gulappa Alur.
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S
Ex.C-1 to 3 : Malaprabha Grameen Bank receipts dtd:30.012.2003,
24.12.2002 and 27.12.2003.
Ex.C-4 & 5 : RTCs.
Ex.C-6 & 7 : Copy of letter issued by complainant advocate to Branch
Manager, Malaprabha Bank Br. Naegall Tq:Ron
dtd:03.03.2006.
Ex.C-8 : Copy of legal notice dtd:28.06.2006.
Ex. C-9 : Professional Courier receipt dtd:28.06.2006.
Ex. C-10 : Copy of legal notice dtd:15.09.2006.
Ex. C-11 & 12 : Professional Courier receipts dtd:14.09.2006.
Ex. C-13 : Copy of Gazette notification dtd:04.09.2003 .
Ex.C-14 & 15 : Copy Savings Bank Pass Books.
Ex. C-16 : Copy of notification of D.C, Gadag
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:
NIL
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:
Ex.OP-1 : Copy of attested certificate from village accountant Naregal
dtd:21.12.2002.
Ex. OP-2 : Copy of form No.8.
Ex.OP-3 to 5 : Copy Proposal forms.
(Shri Raju N. Metri) (Shri. D.Y. Basapur) (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)
MEMBER PRESIDENT WOMAN MEMBER