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 insurance sum  of Rs.1,48,840/- with interest @ 18% p.a, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards cost.

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

          Complainants are resident of Jagapur and Hunasikatti village of Naragund Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They had sown Wheat for the year 2004-05 in Rabi season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule through OP No.3. 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 issuance of notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel, OP No.2 appeared through DGP and Op No.3 remained absent. Op No.1 & 2 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 crop of Wheat during the year 2004-05 for Rabi season.   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 crop for the 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.

          5. After hearing, my predecessor passed common judgment on 02.03.2009, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.1975/2009 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bangalore,   the   same   came  to  be dismissed. OP No.1 has preferred R.P. No.2393-2394/08 before Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the same came to be allowed and remanded for fresh disposal.

          6.       After receipt of the records, notices were issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor again passed common judgment on 27.05.2010 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 has again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.2665/10 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore and the same came to be allowed on 28.10.2010 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          7.       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 has again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.502/16 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.

          8. After receipt of the records, notices were issued to the parties. Complainant. No.2 to 7 and 10,11,13, to 16, 18, 19 & 20 and OPs.  Complainant No.5,6,12,13 & 17 are dead and LRs brought on record.  Complainant No.1, 6(b),13(c),5(b),3,10,11,15,17(b),18,20, and 12(d)  are filed affidavit evidence and examined as PW-1 to PW-12 and got marked documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-36.  Ops remained absent. and not chosen to file affidavit evidence.

9.       OP No.1 filed written arguments. Counsel for complainant argued.
No argument advanced by OPs.

          10.     The points for consideration to us are as under:

1. Whether the complainants and LRs are prove that, there is a deficiency of  service committed by the OPs?

2. Whether the complainants and LRs 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. PW-1 to PW-12 filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of complaint. PW-1 to  PW-12    have stated that, Complainants are resident of Jagapur and Hunasikatti village of Naragund Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They had sown Wheat for the year 2004-05 in Rabi season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule through OP No.3. 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.C-36  RTCs reveal that complainant are owner of the their respective lands. Main contention of Op No.1 is that there was a no shortfall, as per yield data report issued by statistical department.  In the written version filed by Op No.1 of Naragund Hobli for Wheat (RF) shown the Threshold yield is 12  Assessed yield is 611 and shortfall is NIL, for the year 2004-05 of  Rabi season. So,  there is no shortfall. 

15. 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 3 years in the year 2008. Even complaint is barred by limitation. Without proving the case with oral evidence and documents, complainants are not entitled the relief. Mere, allegation made in the complaint without producing documentary evidence to show that there is a shortfall, they cannot  be entitled the reliefs.

          16.     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.         

             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.

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 28^th  day of November- 2022)

           (Shri Raju N. Metri)                                             (Shri. D.Y. Basapur)  

                MEMBER                                                          PRESIDENT             

-: ANNEXURE :-

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S:

PW-1 : Shivappa S/o Yallappa Basappanavar

PW-2 : Maruti S/o Ramachandrappa Mullur

PW-3 : Ningangouda S/o Chandragouda Gadiyappa Goudra

PW-4 : Hanamantgouda S/o Shiddangouda Dyavangoudra

PW-5 : Tammangouda W/o Shiddangouda Dyavangoudra

PW-6 : Shivanagouda S/o Giriyappagouda Fakeergoudra

PW-7 : Ninganagouda S/o Shankargouda Hadli

PW-8: Kallayya S/o Shekharayya Hiremath

PW-9 : Devendrappa S/o Shivaputrappa Mullur

PW-10: Ishwaragouda W/o Gulangouda Fakiragouda

PW-11: Irangouda S/o Gulanagouda Fakeeragoudra

PW-12: Ningangouda W/o Mallanagouda Gadiyappagoudra

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1to 36: RTCs

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

        NIL

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

         NIL

           (Shri Raju N. Metri)                                             (Shri. D.Y. Basapur)  

                MEMBER                                                          PRESIDENT