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.88,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a, towards mental agony Rs.5,000/- to complainant and cost of the proceedings.

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

          Complainants are resident of  Halakeri village of Ron Taluk.  They have grown Onion  for the year 2005-06 in Kharif season and paid the premium amount through OP No.2 for  Kharif season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule. 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 & 2 appeared through counsel. OP No.3 appeared through DGP and Op No.1 to  3 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 crops Onion for the Kharif seasons 2005-06.  As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall to the said crops in Kharif season. 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 crops for the Rabi season 2005-06.  OP No.2 is 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.2. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          5. The brief facts of the 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 crop during the Kharif season 2005-06. OP No.3 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.

          6.       After hearing, complaint is partly allowed in common judgment passed on 09.09.2008 and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.4027/09 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bangalore,   the   same   came  to  be allowed on 28.07.2010 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 06.01.2016 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 has again preferred an  Appeal No.480/16 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 was issued to the parties. Complainant No.1 is reported as dead and no LRs are brought on record. Notice served to complainant No.2 3  and Ops 1 to 3.   Complainant No.1 filed affidavit and examined as PW-1 and marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13.   KVK, Adv. filed power for OP No.1 and DGP filed M/A for OP No. 3 and written version. NSB, Adv. filed power for OP No.2. and affidavit filed and examined as RW-1 and marked the document as Ex.Op No.1.  Op No.1 & 3 have not chosen to file affidavit evidence.

          9.       OP No.1 has filed written arguments. Heard the arguments on both sides.

          10.     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?

       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 has filed affidavits and reiterated contents of complaint. PW-1has stated that, Complainants are resident of  Halakeri village of Ron Taluk.  They have grown Onion  for the year 2005-06 in Kharif season and paid the premium amount through OP No.2 for  Kharif season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule. 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-13 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. In the written version filed by Op No.1 for crop Onion of Naregal Hobli, threshold yield is 1505 assessed yield is 3276  and shortfall is NIL for the year 2005-06 for Kharif season and there is no shortfall.  Ex.OP-1  issued by bank for premium amount paid by the complainants.

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 2005-06 and complaint filed after 2 years in the year 2008. 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.

          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 18^th day of October- 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 : Veerabhadrappa Madivalappa Rotti

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

 Ex.C-1 : Bank receipt

Ex.C-2 : RTC

Ex.C-3:Bank Receipt.

Ex.C-4 & 5 :RTCs.

Ex.C-6:Letter from Dist. Statistical Officer, Gadag.

Ex.C-7 to 13 Crop experiment Forms No.II.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

 RW-1: Bhimsen Pralhad Pujar

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.Op-1 : Crop Insurance Statement.

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

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT            WOMAN MEMBER