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, Ops are directing to pay the compensation amount as stated in the column No.4 para No.4 to the each complainants with interest 18% p.a. from the date of notice i.e. 13.05.2008 and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony each and cost of the proceedings.

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

          Complainants No.1 to 4 and 8 to 10 are resident of Shirur Tq:Mundargi, Dist:Gadag and the complainants No.5 to 7 are residents of Jantli Tq:Mundargi Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Onion for the year 2003-04 in Kharif season and paid the premium amount through OP No.3.  The Government declared drought and waived the revenue tax of the Agricultural lands.  Inspite of repeated request to Ops 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 and OP No.2 appeared through DGP and Op No.3 & 4 remained absent. OP No.1 & 2 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 Onion during the Kharif seasons 2003-04.  As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall to the said crops in Kharif season. 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 Kharif season 2003-04. OP No.2 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.

          5.       After hearing, common judgment passed on 30.01.2009 and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.1094/09 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes   Redressal   Commission,   Bangalore,   the   same   came  to  be dismissed on 24.04.2009. Op No.1 preferred R.P No.3555/09 before Hon’ble National Commission, and same came to be allowed on 08.10.2009 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 29.01.2010 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.839/10 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore and the same came to be allowed on 31.08.2010 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          7.  After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor again passed common judgment on 14.12.2015 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.282/16 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.

          8. After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties. Notice served to complainant No.1, 3, 5, 6 and 8 they are remained absent. Complainant No.2, 4,7, 9 and 10  is reported as dead and no  LRs are not brought on record. Complainant No.1 filed affidavit on 31.07.2008 and examined as PW-1 and marked documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-20.   OP No.1, 3 & 4 appeared through their counsel and OP No.2 appeared through DGP. Praveen Kumar B.R. filed affidavit for Op No.1 and examined as RW-1 and marked as Ex.OP-1 to OP-9.

          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 filed affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. PW-1 has stated that, complainants No.1 to 4 and 8 to 10 are resident of  Shirur Tq:Mundargi, Dist:Gadag and the complainants No.5 to 7 are residents of Jantli Tq:Mundargi Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Onion for the year 2003-04 in Kharif season and paid the premium amount through OP No.3.  The Government declared drought and waived the revenue tax of the Agricultural lands.  Inspite of repeated request to Ops did not settle the claim.   So Ops have committed the deficiency of service. 

          14. RW-1 has reiterated the contents of the written version filed by Op No.1 in affidavit. RW-1 has stated that OP No.1 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop Onion during the Kharif seasons 2003-04.  As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall to the said crops in Kharif season.

          15. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-20 RTCs and other documents are not disputing by the Ops. The main contention of Op No.1 is that there was no shortfall as per yield data report issued by statistical department. Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-9 reveal that as per crop cutting experiment there is no shortfall as OP No.1 specifically mentioned in written version Para-3.

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 5 years in the year 2008. Even complaint is barred by limitation. Complainant No.2, 4, 7, 9 and 10 are reported as dead and their LRs are not brought on record.  Complainant No.1, 3,5,6 and 8 are remained absent. Inspite of service notice and they have not chosen to file their affidavit evidence. Without proving the case with affidavit evidence and documents complainants are not entitled the relief. Mere allegation made in the complaint without producing over and documentary evidence, complaint cannot be allowed.

          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 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 08^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: Basappa S/o Huchchappa Shirund

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 : RTC

Ex.C-2 : Proposal form.

Ex.C-3: RTC

Ex.C-4: Proposal form..

Ex.C-5: RTC

Ex.C-6 & 7: Proposal form.

Ex.C-8 : RTC

Ex.C-9 to 11 : Proposal form.

Ex.C-12: RTC

Ex.C-13 & 14: Proposal form.  

Ex.C-15 : legal notice.

Ex.C-16: Postal receipt

Ex.C-17 to 19: Postal acknowledgments.

Ex.C-20 : Copy of letter written by Dist. Statistical officer, Gadag.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

RW-1:Praveen Kumar B.R.

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.OP-1: Scheme and guidelines.

Ex.OP-2: Instructions to Nodal Banks.  

Ex.OP-3: Copy of Settlement yield for Kharif-2002-03.

Ex.OP-4 to 7: Letter written Director of Economics and statics.

Ex.OP-8 : Assessed yield 2003-04.

Ex.OP-9 :Details of Past 5 Yrs, assessed yield data

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

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT            WOMAN MEMBER