DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, | Behind Tahasildar Office, Basaveshwar Nagar, GADAG |
|
| |
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.390/2007 DISPOSED ON 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 |
|
|
| |
BEFORE: | | | HON'BLE MR. D.Y. BASAPUR, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) PRESIDENT HON'BLE Mr. RAJU. N. METRI, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) MEMBER | | HON'BLE Mrs. YASHODA BHASKAR PATIL, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) M.Ed., WOMAN MEMBER |
|
Complainants :- | 1. 2. 3. 3a) 4 5. 6. 7 7a) 7b) 7c) 8 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. | Veeranagouda Shivanagouda Patil, Age: 50 Yrs., Occ: Agri., Basanagouda Sidramappa Patil, (Dead) Smt.Sulochanabai Renukabai Kalavanth, PA Holder Basanagouda Sidramanagouda Patil, His mother LR. Vanishree S/o Basanagouda Patil Age:45 Yrs, Occ:Housewife. Ishwarappa Bheemappa Hugar, PA Holder Basanagaouda Sidramanagouda Patil, Vijaykumar Gurubasappa Mudiyappanavar, Age: 29 Yrs.,
Occ: Adv., Yallappagouda Shivanagouda Marigoudra, Age: 30 Yrs., Occ: Health Dept. Revanappa Ramappa Pujar, Since dead his LRs. Smt. Paravatevva W/o Revanappa Pujar Age:64 Yrs, Occ:Housewife. Shankravva Hanamappa Halayal Age:48 Yrs, Occ:Housewife. Channappa Revanappa Pujar Age:45 Yrs, Occ:Agril Ramappa Veerappa Sullad, Age: 41 Yrs.,Occ: Agri., Smt.Gangawwa W/o Mahantayya Mokashi, Age: 60 Yrs., Occ: Housewife. Irappa Doolappa Sullad, Age: 63 Yrs., Occ: Rtd.Employ. Rangappa Nagappa Chimmanakatti, Age:60 Yrs., Occ: Agri. Basappa Yallappa Teminal, Age: Major Yrs., Occ: Agri., Sangappa Mallappa Kunchakanur, Age: 36 Yrs., Occ: Agri., Anandappa Mallappa Kunchakanur, Age: 25 Yrs., Occ: Agri., Rudrappa Mallappa Kunchakanur, Age: 31 Yrs., Occ: Agri., Mallappa Sankappa Padiyappanavar, Age: 60 Yrs, Occ: Agri., Mallayya Veerayya Mudenagudi, Age: 60 Yrs., Occ: Agri., Shashidhar Sangappa Motagi, Age: 35 Yrs., Occ: Agri., Hanamappa Mallappa Pujar, (Dead) Ningappa Rangappa Dandin, Age: 45 Yrs., Occ: Agri., Shantappa Siddappa Hanji LRs Mallikarjun Shantappa Hanji, Age: 40 Yrs., Occ: Agri., Mudigouda Basanagouda Nagavi LR Shekhargouda Basanagouda Nagavi, Age: 28 Yrs., Occ: Agri., Peersab Yamanoorsab Pinjar, Age: Major Yrs., Occ: Agri., Hanamantgouda Hanamantgouda Kenchanagoudra, Age: 55 Yrs., Occ: Agri., Smt.Laxmawwa W/o Danappa Pattar, Age: 35 Yrs., Occ: House-wife, All Complainants are R/at: Holehadagali, Tq: Ron, Dist: Gadag. (Rep. by Sri.C.G.Mudiyappanavar, Adv.) |
|
V/s
Respondents :- | 1.
2. 3. | Managing Director, Indian Agricultural Insurance Company, Regional Office, Shankarnarayan Building, No.25, M.G.Road, Bangalore – 560 001. (Rep. by Sri.K.V.Kerur, Advocate) The Manager, Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Bank, R/o: Abbigeri Tq: Ron Dist: Gadag. (Absent) The Government of Karnataka, Through its District Commissioner, Gadag District, Gadag (Rep. by DGP, Gadag) |
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.2,38,910/- as shown in schedule para-5 with interest @ 12% p.a, towards mental agony of Rs.4,000/- each and cost of the proceedings.
1. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
Complainants are resident of Holehadagali village of Ron Taluk Dist:Gadag. They have grown Sunflower & Wheat for the year 2003-04 in Rabi 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 settled 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 counsel, OP No.3 appeared through DGP and Op No.2 remained absent. Op No.1 & 3 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 crops Sunflower & Wheat during the year 2003-04 for Rabi seasons. 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.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 Rabi season 2003-04. 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 31.03.2008, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation. OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.2415/2009 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, the same came to be allowed on 04.11.2009 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 23.03.2010 and awarded compensation. Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.1747/10 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.
7. After receipt of the records, notice 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 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.301/16 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.
8. After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties. Complainant
No.2,19 and 22 are reported as dead and no LRs are brought on record. Notice served to complainant No.4,11,13, 18 and 23, they are remained absent. Complainant No.1,3,7 to 10, 12, 14, 15,17,20,21,24 and 25 filed affidavit evidence and examined as PW-1 to PW-16 and got marked documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-81. Notice served to OP No.1 to 3. DGP appeared for Op No.3 and filed the written version. OP No.1 filed affidavit evidence and examined as RW-1 and marked the documents as Ex.Op-1 to Ex.Op-8. OP No.2 remained absent and chosen to file their affidavit evidence.
9. Head, argument on both side.
10. The points for consideration to us are as under:
- Whether the complainants prove that, there is a deficiency in service by the OPs?
- Whether the complainants prove that, they are
entitled for relief?
- 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-16 filed affidavits and reiterated contents of complaint. PW-1 to PW-16 have stated that, complainants are resident of Holehadagali village of Ron Taluk Dist:Gadag. They have grown Sunflower & Wheat for the year 2003-04 in Rabi 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.
14. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-81RTCs and other documents are not disputing by the Ops. RW-1 has filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of written version filed by OP No.1. Main contention of Op No.1 is that there was a no shortfall as per yield data report issued by statistical department.. So, there is no shortfall for the year 2003-04 of Sunflower & Wheat during for Rabi season. Ex.Op-1 to Ex.Op-11 clearly goes to show that Ops have adopted the guidelines issued by the Govt. and not settled the claim as 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 2003-04 and complaint filed after 4 years in the year 2007. Even complaint is barred by limitation. Without proving the case with affidavit 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 the 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, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 17th day of September- 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 : Veeranagouda Shivanagouda Patil,
PW-2 : Vanishri S/o Basanagouda Patil
PW-3 : Vijaykumar Gurubasappa Mudiyappanavar,
PW-4 : Yallappagouda Shivanagouda Marigoudra,
PW-5 : Channappa Revanappa Pujar
PW-6: Ramappa Virappa Sullad,
PW-7 : Smt.Gangawwa W/o Mahantayya Mokashi
PW-8: Irappa Doolappa Sullad,
PW-9: Basappa Yallappa Teminal,
PW-10 : Anandappa Mallappa Kunchakanur
PW-11: Rudrappa Mallappa Kunchakanur,
PW-12: Mallayya Veerayya Mudenagudi,
PW-13 : Ningappa Rangappa Dandin,
PW-14: Mallikarjun Shantappa Hanji,
PW-15 : Hanamanthgouda Hanamanthgouda Kenchanagoudra,
PW-16 : Smt.Laxmawwa W/o Danappa Pattar,
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S
Ex.C-1: Bank receipt.
Ex.C-2 to 26: Proposal forms.
Ex.C-27 to 45: Crop certificates issued by village accountant.
Ex.C-45 : Crop certificate issued by village accountant.
Ex.C-46 to 81 : RTCs.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:
RW-1: Praveen Kumar B.R.
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:
Ex.OP-1:Scheme guidelines.
Ex.Op-2 : Instruction to Nodal Banks.
Ex.OP-3:Copy of the Settlement of claim for Rabi 2003-04 Season.
Ex.OP-4:Statement showing the number of experiments and average yield in
KG/Hectare for selected Hobli for Rabi season.
Ex.Op-5:Copy of assessed yield for Rabi 2002-03 issued by Director of Economics and
Statics (Sunflower)
Ex.OP-6: Copy of assessed yield for Rabi 2003-04 issued by Director of Economics and
Statics (Sunflower)
Ex.Op-7 : Statement showing the year wise assessed yield in KGs/Hectors for the
Hoblis proposed for notification under RKBY for 2004 Rabi (Wheat).
Ex.Op-8: Details of the past 3 years Assessed Yield data District/Taluka/Hobli wise
(Sunflower and wheat irrigated)
(Shri Raju N. Metri) (Shri. D.Y. Basapur) (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)
MEMBER PRESIDENT WOMAN MEMBER
