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 of crop insurance amount of Rs.86,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and cost of the proceedings to each complainant.

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

          Complainants are resident of Jantli-Shirur village of Mundargi Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Sunflower, Groundnut and Onion for the year 2004-05 in Kharif/Rabi seasons 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 service of notice, OP No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and OP No.3 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, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crops during the year 2004-05 in  Kharif/Rabi seasons.  As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall to the crops for the year 2004-05 in Kharif/Rabi  seasons of Damabal Hobli. So, 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 have denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop during the Kharif/Rabi seasons 2004-05.  OP No.2 stated that, they are acting as collecting agent and mediator between the complainants 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, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop during the year 2004-05 in Kharif/Rabi seasons. Complainants are not a consumer to this OP and are only having 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 judgment on 24.09.2008 and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.737/09 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes   Redressal   Commission,   Bangalore,   the   same   came  to  be dismissed on 01.04.2009 and same came to be dismissed. OP No.1 has challenged the said order in R.P. No.2878/09 before the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, allowed on 12.08.2009  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 23.03.2010 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an  Appeal No.2326/10 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore and the same came to be allowed on 13.12.2010 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 06.01.2016 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.473/16 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. Notices served to complainant No.1 & 3 and Ops. Complainant No.2 is reported as dead no LRs are brought on record. KVK, Adv. filed power for OP No.1. NSB, Adv. taken notice for OP No. 2. DGP. filed M/A and written version for OP No.3. Complainant No.1 filed affidavit and examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-42.    Ops have not chosen to file affidavit evidence and documents were marked as
Ex.Op No.1 to Ex.Op-5.   

 10.    OP No.1 filed written arguments. No argument advanced on both side inspite of sufficient time given.

          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 affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. PW-1 has stated that, Complainants are resident of Jantli-Shirur village of Mundargi Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Sunflower, Groundnut and Onion for the year 2004-05 in Kharif /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.

15. Ex.C-1 to Ex.42 RTCs, Certificate issued by OP No.2 and other documents not disputed by the Ops. In written version  OP No.1 specifically stated that, there was no shortfall as per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics for crops.  So, there is no deficiency of service committed by the OP No.1. Ex.OP-1 to 3 Crop Insurance Statement, Ex.OP-4 & 5 Assessed yield in respect of Kharif/Rabi Crops 2004-05 and issued by Director of Economic and Statistic, Department Bangalore dtd:31.08.2006, for Onion of Dombal,  Hobli, Threshold yield is 3946 KG/per Hect, Assessed yield is 6864 and shortfall is NIL and for Sunflower Actual yield is 278 KG/per Hect. Threshold yield is 98 KG/per Hect,. Therefore, Assessed yield is more than threshold yield. Hence, the shortfall is NIL. So, there is no shortfall for said crops of both seasons 2004-05.  Complainants claiming compensation for the loss of crops for the year 2004-05 and complaint filed after 4 years in the year 2008. Mere allegation made in the complaint, without producing documentary evidence to show that there is a shortfall.  For the above, complainants have failed to prove that OPs have committed deficiency of service and they are entitled for the reliefs.   Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 and 2 in Negative.  

             16.  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, directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 16^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: Gurappa Yallappa Palled

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 : Certificate issued by Bank.

Ex.C-2 to 4: RTCs

Ex.C-5 : Certificate issued by Bank.

Ex.C-6 & 7: RTCs

Ex.C-8: Certificate issued by Bank.

Ex.C-9 to 12 RTCs

Ex.C-13: Letter issued by Dist. Statistical Officer, Gadag.

Ex.C-14 to 42: Crop cutting experiments form No.II.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

         NIL

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.OP-1 to 3 : Statement of Crop insurance G-31 (B) of Loanee farmers.

Ex.Op-4 : Letter from Director of Crop Insurance Scheme, Bangalore to The

                Regional Manager, Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd,

                Bangalore dtd:31.08.2005.

Ex.Op-05 : Letter from Director of Crop Insurance Scheme, Bangalore to The

                  Regional Manager, Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd,

                  Bangalore dtd:31.05.2005.

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

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT            WOMAN MEMBER