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.1,77,940/- with interest @ 18% p.a, towards mental agony an amount of Rs.5,000/- each and cost of the proceedings Rs.2,000/- each.

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

          Complainants are resident of  Hunasikatti village of Naragund Taluk.  They have grown 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 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 the 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  Wheat during the year 2004-05 for Rabi seasons.   As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall to the said crops in Rabi season. 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, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop during the Rabi season 2004-05. OP No.2 is not a consumer as 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 26.02.2009, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.1974/09 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bangalore,   the   same   came  to  be dismissed on 02.11.2009. Op preferred R.P.2393-2394/08 same came to be allowed and remanded for fresh disposal.

          6.       After receipt of the records, notice 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 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.2664/10 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, notice issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor again passed common judgment on 05.10.2016 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.501/16 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, notice issued to the parties. Notice served to  Complainant  No.3 to 5, 15 to 17 and 19 they are remained absent. Complainant. No.2,,6 11, 12 and 18 are reported as dead no LRs are brought on record. Affidavit of complainant No.1 filed on 13.02.2009 is examined as CW-1 and documents marked as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C24. DGP appeared for Op No.2 and filed the written version. Praveenkumar B.R. Manager of Op No.1 filed affidavit and examined as RW-1 and marked as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-8.

          9.       Heard the arguments on both side.

          10.     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?

       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 filed affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. PW-1 has stated that, complainants are resident of  Hunasikatti village of Naragund Taluk.  They have grown 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. RW-1 has reiterated the contents of the written version filed by Op No.1 in affidavit. RW-1 has stated that OP No.1 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop Wheat during the year 2004-05 for Rabi seasons.   As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall to the said crops in Rabi season.

15. Ex.C-1 to C-23 RTCs and other documents are not disputing by the Ops. Main contention of Op No.1 is that there was no shortfall as per yield data report issued by statistical department. Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-8 reveal that as per crop cutting experiment there is no shortfall as OP No.1 specifically mentioned in written version Para-L.

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 4 years in the year 2008. Even complaint is barred by limitation. Complainant No.2, 6, 11, 12 and 18 are reported as dead and their LRs are not brought on record.  Complainant No.3 to 5, 15 to 17 and 19 are remained absent. Inspite of service notice and they have not chosen to file their affidavit evidence. Without proving the case with affidavit evidence and documents complainants are not entitled the relief. Mere allegation made in the complaint without producing over and documentary evidence, complaint cannot be allowed.

          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 06^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 Totayya S/o Rajayya Hiremath

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 to 23: RTCs

Ex.C-24:  Copy of letter written by Dist: Statistical officer, Gadag.

 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 : Instructions to Nodal Banks.

Ex.OP-3 : Bank wise claims payable statement.

Ex.Op-4: Statement showing year wise assessed yield.

Ex.Op-5 : Assessed yield Rabi- 2004-05.

Ex.OP-6 : Statement showing year wise assessed yield.

Ex.OP-7 : Assessed yield Rab-2004-05.

Ex.OP-8 : Details of past 3 years Assessed yield Data.

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

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT            WOMAN MEMBER