V/s

JUDGEMENT

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT. YASHODA BHASKAR PATIL, MEMBER

            The complainants have filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for crop insurance amount of Rs.49,491/-,  with interest 12% p.a. towards mental agony Rs.5,000/-  each with cost.

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

            The complainants are residing at Ron Taluk Naregal Village  in Gadag Dist. and they have grown Groundnut, Onion and Sunflower for Kharif  season during the year 2003-04.  They have got insured the above said crops with OP No.1 through OP No.2 Karnataka Grameen Vikas Bank, Branch Naregal, and paid the premium amount.  Due to non-availability of rain, they have suffered loss.  OPs have not paid the insurance amount in spite requests.  Complainants have mentioned the extent of land, crop, insured amount and premium paid details in the complaint.  Hence, filed this complaint.

          2.   After accepting the complaint, notice was issued to the OPs.  OP No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and  OP No.3 appeared through DGP. 

            3.         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 and admitted the premium paid by the complainants.  They have settled the claim amount whenever shortfall found as per the Statistical data issued by the Government.  In this case , there is no shortfall during the said period.  Hence, they have not settled the claim amount to the complainants.  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 seasons 2003-04.  After collecting the premium submitted to OP No.1 and also after shortfall amount for Groundnut and Onion to the Kharif season is credited to complainants account.  So there is no deficiency of service. 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 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.   

          6.       To prove the case, complainant No.1 filed affidavit.

          7.       After hearing the arguments, complaint was partly allowed on 19.11.2007 and awarded the compensation.  OP No.1 preferred an appeal in Appeal No.3272/2010 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, the same came to be allowed on 30.11.2010 and remanded for fresh disposal.    After receipt of the records, again my predecessor   allowed   the    complaint   in   common   judgment passed  on 14.12.2015 and awarded the compensation.  Complainant preferred an appeal No.280/16 before the Hon’ble Karnataka 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, Court notices were issued to the parties.  OP No.3 appeared through DGP and filed written version.  OP No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel. Complainant No.1 filed affidavit and examined as PW-1 and marked documents as Ex.C-1 to C-5. Complainant No.1 & 2 reported as dead no LRs are brought on record.

          9.       Heard the arguments of both side. 

          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 are entitled for the 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, PW-1 has filed their separate affidavits in-lieu of their chief examination and reiterated the contents of the complaint.  PW-1 has stated that, the complainants are residing at Ron Taluk Naregal Village  in Gadag Dist. and they have grown Groundnut, Onion and Sunflower for Kharif  season during the year 2003-04.  They have got insured the above said crops with OP No.1 through OP No.2 Karnataka Grameen Vikas Bank, Branch Naregal, and paid the premium amount.  Due to non-availability of rain, they have suffered loss.  OPs have not paid the insurance amount in spite requests.  Complainants have mentioned the extent of land, crop, insured amount and premium paid details in the complaint. 

14.     Ex.C-1 &  Ex.C-2. are the RTCs reveals that, complainants are owners of their respective lands. Ex.C-3 reports submitted by statistical department Ex.C-4 letter issued by joint director, Ex.C-5 report reveals that Ops have conducted crop cutting and submitted the report. Op No.1 stated in the para No.3 for the year 2003-04, Naregal Hobli, Groundnut, Sunflower and Onion threshold yield and shortfall shown as nil.

15. As per guidelines Ops have not settled as there is no shortfall. So complainants have failed to prove that there was shortfall and entitled the relief.  Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 and 2 are 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.

Office is directed to return the amount to the OP No.1 deposited in this case, if OP No.1 failed to receive the amount, amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposit.

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 05^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 Kalakappa Basappa Hattikatagi

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 & 2: RTC.

Ex.C-3: Copy of letter from Dist. Statistical office, Gadag dtd:29.09.2012.  

Ex.C-4: Letter from Joint Director, State Statistical Officer. 

             dtd:03.11.2009.

Ex.P-5 : Letter from Dist: Statistical office, Gadag  dtd:10.09.2012.

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