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 crop loan insurance amount as shown in schedule para No.4 with interest @ 18% p.a, towards mental agony of Rs.1,000/- each and cost of the proceedings.

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

          Complainants are resident of  Naregal village of Ron Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown, Sunflower for the year 2003-04 in 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.  Hence, filed this complaint.

          2.       In pursuance of service of notice, OP No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel  OP No. 3 appeared through DGP.  OP No.1 to 3 filed their written version.

          3.       The brief facts of 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 of Sunflower for the year 2003-04 for Rabi season.   As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall.  So, there is no deficiency of service. 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 is denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop during the Rabi season 2003-04.  OP No.3 stated that, they are acting as collecting agent and mediator between the complainants and OP No.1, they have receive 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  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 for  the  Rabi season 2003-04.  Complainants are not a consumer; this Op has 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 18.12.2007, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru,   the   same   came  to  be dismissed. Op No.1 has preferred R.P No.1714/09 before Hon’ble National Commission, and same came to be allowed on 25.05.2009 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          7.       After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor again passed common judgment on 27.11.2015 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment. OP No.1 has  again preferred an Appeal No.272/16 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru 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.2 & 4 they have remained absent. Complainant No.1 & 3 dead their LRs are brought on record. Complainant NO.1 and 3(b) and 4 filed affidavit and examined as CW-1 to CW-3 and got marked documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-17.  Notices were served to OPs. KVK, Adv. filed power for OP No.1 and NSB, Adv. taken notice  for Op No.2.   Ops have not chosen to file affidavit evidence.

9.       Heard, arguments on both sides.

10.     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?

       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. CW-1 to CW-5 have filed affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. CW-1to CW-3 have stated that, Complainants are resident of  Naregal village of Ron Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown, Sunflower for the year 2003-04 in 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. 

14. Ex.C-1 to Ex.17 are 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 and there is no deficiency of service committed by the OP No.1. As per assessed yield in respect of Rabi crops, 2003-04 issued by statistical department dtd:25.05.2004, which is available on record and it reveals that, Naregal Hobli planned 12 analyzed 12 assessed yield 322. So, there is no shortfall for the Rabi season of Sunflower during the year 2003-04.

15. Ex.OP-1 to 17 clearly goes to show that, Sunflower for the year 2003-04 for Rabi season. 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 3 years in the year 2007. Without proving the case with affidavit evidence and documents, complainants are not entitled the reliefs. Mere allegation made in the complaint without producing documentary evidence to show that there is a shortfall and not settled the claim.

          16.     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.         

             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.

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 17^th  day of October- 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 :  Honawad Kallappa Kashappa

           & Renuka S/o Kallappa Honawad

PW-2 : Basavaraj S/o Parappa Jutli

PW-3 : Kalakavva W/o Kalakappa Gangargond.     

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1: Postal receipt.

Ex.C-2 : Postal acknowledgment.

Ex.C-3 : Legal notice.

Ex.C-4to 7  : Certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-8 to 14:RTCs

Ex.C-15 : Letter from Dist. Statistical officer Gadag.

Ex.C-16 : Letter from crop Insurance.

Ex.C-17 : Letter from Dist. Statistical officer Gadag.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

    NIL

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

      -NIL-

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

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT            WOMAN MEMBER