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, mental agony and cost of the proceedings.

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

          Complainants are resident of Hirevaddatii village of Mundargi Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Sunflower, Onion and Groundnut  for the year 2004-05 in Kharif 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 appeared through their counsel.  DGP appeared for OP No. 3. OP No.3 remained absent. 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 crops Sunflower, Onion and Groundnut  for the year 2004-05 for Kharif 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 have denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop during the Kharif season 2004-05.  OP No.2 stated that, they are acting as collecting agent and mediator between the complainants and OP No.1, they have received the 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 crops for  the  Kharif season 2004-05.  Complainants are not a consumer as 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 03.03.2009, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.1973/09 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru,   the   same   came  to  be allowed on 02.11.2009 and remanded for fresh disposal. Op No.1 has challenged the Judgment before the National Commission, New Delhi,  in  R.P. No.2393-2394/2008 the same came to be allowed and remanded for fresh disposal.  

          7.       After receipt of the records, notice was 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 has  again preferred an Appeal No.1758/10 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and the same came to be allowed on 28.10.2010 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          8.       After receipt of the records, notice was 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 No.485/16 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 was issued to the parties. Notices were served to Complainant No.2,5,7,8, 4,6 & 9 not in village.  Complainant No.3 is reported as dead and no LRs brought on record. Complainant No.2 filed affidavit and examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-47.  KVK, Adv. filed power for OP No.1.  DGP filed M/A for  OP No.3 and filed written version.  OPs have not chosen to file affidavit evidence.

10.     OP No.1 has filed written arguments. Heard, arguments on both sides.  

11.     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?

       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 has  filed affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. PW-1 has stated that, complainants are resident of Hirevaddatii village of Mundargi Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Sunflower, Onion and Groundnut  for the year 2004-05 in Kharif 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.

15. Ex.C-1 to Ex.47 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 Kharif 2004-05  season during the year 2004-05 issued by statistical department of Dambal Hobli for Groundnut (RF) Threshold  yield is 33 assessed yield 648 and shorftfall is NIL and for Onion irrigation threshold yield is 3949 assessed yield 6864 and shortfall is NIL. For Sunflower (RF) threshold yield is 98 assessed yield 278 and shortfall is NIL.  So, there is no shortfall for the Kharif season of Groundnut, Sunflower and Onion during the year 2004-05.

          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 29^th  day of October- 2022)

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

              MEMBER                                                        PRESIDENT           

-: ANNEXURE :-

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S:

PW-1 :  Kariyappa Rayappa Soratoor

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1to 6: RTCs

Ex.C-7 to 11: Bank receipts.

Ex.C-12 :Legal notice.

Ex.C-13 : Letter from Dist. Statistical Officer,, Gadag.

Ex.C-14: Agriculture insurance company of India, Banglore, Threshold and Assessed 

              yield details.

Ex.C-15 :Crop details.

Ex.C-16: Letter from District Statistical Officer, Gadag.

Ex.C-17 to 47 : Crop cutting experiments Form No.II

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

    NIL

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

      -NIL-

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

              MEMBER                                                        PRESIDENT