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 of Rs.7,56,000/- as shown in schedule para-5 with interest @ 18% p.a, towards mental agony of Rs.5,000/- each and cost of the proceedings.

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

          Complainants are resident of  Abbigeri village of Ron  Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Sunflower, Bengalgram and Onion for the year 2004-05 in Kharif/Rabi season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule para-6 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 notice, OP No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and OP No.3 appeared through DGP and  Op No.1 to  3 filed 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 Sunflower, Bengalgram and Onion during the year 2004-05 for Kharif/Rabi seasons.   As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall. Hence, claim is not settled.  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 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crops during the Kharif/Rabi season 2004-05.  Complainants are not a consumer. OP No.2 stated that, after collecting the premium and same is submitted to OP No.1. So, there is no deficiency of service. 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 crops during the Kharif/Rabi season 2004-05.  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 22.04.2008, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.147/2009 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bangalore,   the   same   came  to  be dismissed. OP No.1 preferred R.P.No.1790/09 before Hon’ble the National Commission, 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 23.03.2010 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.2358/10 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and the same came to be allowed on 13.12.2010 and remanded for fresh disposal.

8.       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.288/16 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.

          9.       After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties. Complainant
No.5,9,10,15,18 and 21 are reported as dead and no LRs brought on record. Complainant No.1, 6 to 8, 11 to 14, 16,17, 19 and 21are filed affidavits and examined as CW-1 to CW-16 and got marked documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-50. DGP appeared for Op No.3 and filed the written version. Notice served to Op No.1 & 2. OP No.1 filed affidavit and examined as RW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-15.

           10.    Argument heard,  on both side,.

          11.     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?

      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 to PW-16 filed affidavits and reiterated contents of complaint. PW-1 to   PW-16 have stated that, complainants are resident of  Abbigeri village of Ron  Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Sunflower, Bengalgram and Onion for the year 2004-05 in Kharif/Rabi season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule para-6 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.C-50 RTCs and other documents are not disputing by the Ops. Main contention of Op No.1 is that there was a no shortfall as per yield data report issued by statistical department. Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-16 crop cutting experiment produced by Dist. Statistical Department and other documents are discloses that Ops adopted the procedure as per guidelines. In the written version filed by Op No.1 shown the threshold yield, assessed yield and shortfall. For the year 2004-05 for Kharif/Rabi season there is no shortfall.  

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 2004-05 and complaint filed after 3years in the year 2007. Even complaint is barred by limitation. Complainant No.5,9,10,15,18 and 21 are reported as dead and their LRs are not brought on record.  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.

          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 29^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 : Shankargouda S/o Basanagouda Policepatil

PW-2 : Smt. Sushilabai W/o Shankargouda Policepatil

PW-3 :Kashappagouda S/o Shankargouda Policepatil

PW-4 : Naveen S/o Shankargouda Policepatil

PW-5 : Sharanappa S/o Balappa Maranabasari

PW-6 : Basavaraj S/o Balappa Maranabasari

PW-7 : Gandhi S/o Balappa Maranabasari

PW-8 : Basappa S/o Malakappa Neeraloti

PW-9 :Shankargouda S/o Doddabasangouda Rudragoudar

PW-10:Lingraj S/o Manohar Talabal

PW-11: Shivaraj S/o Manohar Talabal

PW-12 : Rudrappa S/o Veerabasappa Malashetti

PW-13 :Huchchappa S/o Veerappa Hadapad

PW-14 :Somappa S/o Basappa Harlapur.

PW-15 : Veerappa S/o Huchchappa Hadapad

PW-16 :Hanamappa S/o Bheemappa Kattimani

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 to  12 : Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank receipts.

Ex.C-13 to 24:  RTCs

Ex.C-25 to 34:  Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank receipts.

Ex.C-35 to 50 : RTCs

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 : Govt. order in respect of Kharif 2004 under RBKY dtd:24.05.2004.

Ex.OP-3 : Instructions to Nodal Banks.

Ex.OP-4: Copy of the Rabi 04-05 Nodal Bank wise Claims payable statement.

Ex.OP-5 : Statement showing Bankwise claims for Kharif 2004 seasib,

Ex.Op-6: Copy of the Actual yield data from 1999-2003 pertaining to RBKY/NAIS

              issued by Director of Economics and Statistics (Ground nut rainfed)

Ex.OP-7:Copy of assessed yield data in respect of Rabi crops Kharif 2004-05 issued by

              the Director of Economics and Statistics (Ground nut rainfed)

Ex.OP-8 : Copy of the Actual yield data from 1999-2003 pertaining to RBKY/NAIS

              issued by Director of Economics and Statistics. Dtd:31.10.2012.

Ex.OP-9: Assessed yield 2004-05.

Ex.OP-10 : Copy of the Actual yield data from 1999-2003 pertaining to RBKY/NAIS

              issued by Director of Economics and Statistics. Dtd:31.10.2012.

Ex.OP-11 : Assessed yield 2004-05.

Ex.OP-12 : Letter issued by Statistical department.

Ex.OP-13 : Assessed yield for Rabi Season for the year 2004-05

Ex.OP-14 : Assessed yield 2004-05         

Ex.OP-15 : Letter issued by statistical department.

Ex.OP-16 : Details of past 5 years assessed yield data.

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

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT            WOMAN MEMBER