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 of crop insurance amount with interest, mental agony and cost.

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

          Complainants are resident of Huilgol village of Gadag Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They had sown Wheat, Bengalgram and Jowar 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.

          3.       In pursuance of service of notice, OP No.1 & 3 appeared through counsel, OP No.2 appeared through DGP.  Op No.1 to 3 filed written version. 

          4.       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 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.

          5.       The brief facts of  written version filed by OP No.2 are as under:

          OP No.2 denied the various allegations, and contended that, the  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.  The brief facts of  written version filed by OP No.3 are as under:

          OP No.3 has denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crops during the Rabi season 2004-05.  OP No.3 stated that, they are acting as a 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.3. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          7.  After hearing, my predecessor, passed common judgment on 21.04.2008, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.3026/08 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bangalore,   the   same   came  to  be dismissed on 29.01.2009.  Op No.1 has preferred R.P No.1607/09 before Hon’ble National Commission, and same came to be allowed on 25.05.2009 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          8.       After receipt of the records, notices were 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.2335/10 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore and the same came to be allowed on 13.12.2010 and was remanded for fresh disposal.

          9.       After receipt of the records, notices were 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 has again preferred an Appeal No.283/16 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore and the same came to be allowed on 03.02.2020 and was remanded for fresh disposal.

          10. After receipt of the records, notices were issued to the parties. Complainant No.1is reported as dead and LRs are brought on record. Notices were served to complainant No.1(a),2,3 and OP No.1 to 3. Complainant No.3 filed affidavit evidence and examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-26.  DGP filed M/A and written version for OP No.2. OP No.3 filed written version.  K.V.K. Adv. for Op No.1 filed affidavit and examined as RW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.Op-1 to Ex.Op-14.  OP No.2 & 3 have not chosen to file affidavit evidence.

11.     Counsel for Op No.1 filed written arguments. Heard, arguments on both               sides.

          12.     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?

       13.   Our findings on the above points are as under:

              Point No. 1:  In the negative.

              Point No. 2:  In the negative.  

              Point No. 3:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

             14.  Point No.1 & 2:- The points are taken together to avoid the repetition of facts.

            15.   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 Huilgol village of Gadag Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They had sown Wheat, Bengalgram and Jowar 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.

16. Per contra, RW-1 has filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of the written version filed by Op No.1. RW-1 has stated that, OP No.1 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crops 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.

17. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-26 documents are not disputed by the Ops. Ex.C-26 issued by Statistical Department to counsel for complainants reveals that, no documents available in the office and applications submitted to Director of Statistical Department Bengaluru. Merely, Statistical Department issued a letter as no documents available for the year 2004-05 is not ground to allow the complaint, as Op No.1 produced the relevant documents.  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 Rabi season of Betageri Hobli for Wheat (RF) Threshold yield is 119 KG/per Hect. and Assessed yield is 323 KG/Per Hect., for Bengalgram Threshold yield is 170 KG/per Hect. and Assessed yield is 405 KG/Per Hect.  and Jowar (RF)  Threshold yield is 239 KG/per Hect. and Assessed yield is 559 KG/Per Hect.  during the year 2004-05 issued by Statistical Department of Betageri Hobli, in all the above crops Assessed yield is more than Threshold yield. Hence, there is no shortfall.   

          18.     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.         

             19.  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, directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this 23^rd  day of  December- 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 : Smt. Rachawwa W/o Shivappa Chanchi

COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1: Postal receipt

Ex.C-2 : Postal acknowledgment.

Ex.C-3 : Legal notice.

Ex.C-4 to 6: Bank receipts.

Ex.C-7 to 9: Proposal forms.

Ex.C-10 to  12 :Certificates issued by village accountant

Ex.C-13 to 25:RTCs

Ex.C-26: copy of letter from Dist. Statistical Officer, Gadag dtd:24.09.2009

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 : Circular for Rabi & Summer seasons 2004-05, instructions to Nodal Banks.

Ex.Op-3 : Copy of Rabi 0405 Nodal Bankwise claims payable statement.

Ex.Op-4 :Statement showing yearwise Assessed yield (in KGS/Hect) for the hoblis 

               proposed for notification under RKB for 2004-05. (Rabi, Wheat, Irrigated)

Ex.Op-5 : Copy of Assessed yield, Rabi 2004-05.

Ex.Op-6: Statement showing yearwise Assessed yield (in KGS/Hect) for the hoblis 

               proposed for notification under RKB for 2004-05. (Rabi, Wheat, unirrigated)

Ex.Op-7: Copy of Assessed yield, Rabi 2004-05.

Ex.Op-8: Statement showing yearwise Assessed yield (in KGS/Hect) for the hoblis 

               proposed for notification under RKB for 2004-05. (Rabi, Gram, Unirrigated)

Ex.Op-9 : Copy of Assessed yield , Rabi 2003-04.

Ex.Op-10: Copy of Assessed yield , Rabi 2004-05.

Ex.Op-11 : Copy Statement showing yearwise Assessed yield (in KGS/Hect) for the

                 hoblis  proposed for notification under RKB for 2004-05.(Rabi Jowar,

                 Unirrigated)

Ex.Op-12 : Copy Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojana – Assessed yield in KGs/Hect. for

                 2003-04.(Rabi, Season-Rabi)

Ex.Op-13 : Copy Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojana – Assessed yield in KGs/Hect. for

                 2004-05.(Rabi Jowar, Unirrigated)

Ex.Op-14 : Copy of details of past 5 years assessed yield data District/Taluk/Hoble

                  wise.

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

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT              WOMAN MEMBER