COMPLAINT NO.222/2007

V/s

JUDGEMENT

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. D.Y. BASAPUR, PRESIDENT

          The complainant has filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for crop loan insurance with interest @ 18% p.a, towards mental agony Rs.10,000/- each and cost of the proceedings of Rs.10,000/-.

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

          Complainant is resident of  Naregal village of Ron Taluk,  he has  grown Onion for the year 2003-04 in Rabi season and paid the premium amount through OP No.2.  The Government declared drought and waived the revenue tax of the Agricultural lands.  However, OPs did not pay the insured amount.  Complainant has separately mentioned the extent of land, premium amount, insurance amount, season and name of crop in detail. Inspite of issue notice to Ops they did not pay the premium amount.  Hence, Ops have committed the deficiency of  service. Hence, filed this complaint. 

          2.       In pursuance of notice, OP No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and OP No.3 appeared through DGP and filed their 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, complainant has claimed for the loss of their crop during the Kharif season 2003-04.  As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was shortfall in the yield to Onion crops, Ron Hobli of Gadag District during Kharif-2003-04 season and settled  the claim.  In the written version it is specifically mentioned as threshold yield is 2178,  assessed yield is 4548  and shortfall is Nil.  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, complainant has claimed for the loss of their crop during the Kharif season 2003-04. OP No.2 stated that after collecting premium from complainant they paid to insurance company. So 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, complainant has claimed for the loss of their crop during the Kharif season 2003-04. OP No.3 stated that OP No.2 after collecting the premium from complainant they paid to insurance company. OP No.3 is Govt. having only supervision powers it is not a consumer. So no deficiency of service committed by OP No.3. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          6.       To prove the case, complainant filed affidavit on 12.12.2007.

          7.       After hearing, complaint is partly allowed in common judgment in Complaint Nos.189/07, 267/07 and 268/07 along with this complaint on 18.12.2007 and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission,   Bangalore,   the   same   came  to  be rejected. Then OP No.1 preferred Revision petition  before  Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, same is came to be allowed and remand for fresh disposal.

          8. After receipt of the records, parties appeared through their counsel complainant died his LRs Complainant No.1 (1) to 1(d) are brought on record. Complainant No.1 (d) Girish filed affidavit.

           9.      After hearing, my predecessor again passed common judgment in Complaint Nos.267/07, 320/07, 326/07 304/08, 432/08 and 433/08 , along with this case on 14.12.2015 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.271/16  before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore and the same came to be allowed on 03.02.2020 and remanded for re-consideration. 

          10.     After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties.  Affidavit filed by complainant on 12.12.2007 and LR of complainant No. 1(d)  held affidavit on
27.10.2021 is examined as PW-1 & 2 and the documents produced by complainant are marked as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13.  Sri. KVK, Advocate for OP No.1 filed affidavit of Praveenkumar B.R. for OP No.1 and examined as RW-1 and marked the documents as Ex.OP No.1 to Ex.OP-4.   DGP filed memo of appearance for OP No.3 and filed written version. 

          11.     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, complainant has claimed for the loss of their crop during the Kharif season 2003-04. OP No.3 stated that OP No.2 after collecting the premium from complainant they paid to insurance company. OP No.3 is Govt. having only supervision powers it is not a consumer. So no deficiency of service committed by OP No.3. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          12.     Heard the arguments on both side

          13.     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?

       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 us, PW-1 & PW-2 filed affidavit in-lieu of their examination in chief and were examined as PW-1 PW-2 and reiterated the contents of the complaint. PW-1 & PW-2 has stated that, complainant is resident of Naregal village of Ron Taluk,  he has  grown Onion for the year 2003-04 in Rabi season and paid the premium amount through OP No.2.  The Government declared drought and waived the revenue tax of the Agricultural lands.  However, OPs did not pay the insured amount.  Complainant has separately mentioned the extent of land, premium amount, insurance amount, season and name of crop in detail.  Inspite of issue notice to Ops they did not pay the premium amount.  Hence, Ops have committed the deficiency of service.

            17. RW-1 has stated in the affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination and stated that OP No.1 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainant has claimed for the loss of their crop during the Kharif season 2003-04.  As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was shortfall in the yield to Onion crops, Ron Hobli of Gadag District during Kharif-2003-04 season and settled claim amount.  

          18.     Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13, the proposal forms and RTCs, notice notification of DC, Gadag,  Crop cutting report, report issued by Statistical  department are not disputed by the OPs.     The    main    contention   taken   by   the   OP  No.1 in written version is that, complainants claimed for the loss of their crop during the Khariff season 2003-04.  As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was shortfall in the yield of Onion crops, Ron Hobli of Gadag District during Khariff-2003-04 season. Ex.OP No.1 Guidelines Ex. OP No.2 instructions to Nodal Banks settlement claims for Rabi-2003-04 and yield report reveals that already OP No.1 settled the claim of complainant.  As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was shortfall in the yield of Onion crops, Ron Hobli of Gadag District during Khariff-2003-04 season. Ex.OP-3 Bank statement revealsl that Sl.No.48 & 49 Karnataka Bank Ltd., Gadag shortfall amount is credited to account of the complainant through cheque.

          19.     For the above, complainant has failed to prove the case and he is not entitled for the relief as sought for in the complaint.  Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 and 2 in Negative.         

             20.  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 OPs deposited in this case, if OPs 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 29^th 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:  Kotagi Koteppa Shankarappa.

PW-2 : Girish Koteppa Kotagi

 DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1:Copy of the declaration form.

Ex.C-2: Copy form No.24.

Ex.C-3: Copy of Proposal form

Ex.C-4: Copy of  notice.

Ex.C-5 to 7: Copy Postal receipts.

Ex.C-8 & 9:RTCs

Ex.C-10: Copy of Director of Economic and Statistics letter dtd:19.01.2004.

Ex.C-11: Copy of letter from Statistical Department, Gadag, dtd:03.10.2012. Ex.C-12: Copy of letter from Joint Director, Statistical Department Bangalore

             . Dtd:03.11.2009.

Ex.C-13: Copy of letter from Dist. Statistical Dept. Gadag. Dtd:10.09.2012.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

RW-1 Sri. Praveen Kumar B.R.

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.OP-1:Copy of Scheme guidelines.

Ex.Op-2 Copy of instructions to Nodal Banks.

Ex.OP-3 Copy of Settlement of claims for Rabi 2003-04 dtd:27.05.2005.

Ex.Op-4 Copy of yield report issued by the Government of Karnataka    

            dtd:28.06.2019.

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

        MEMBER                    PRESIDENT              WOMAN MEMBER