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.36,677/- with interest @ 12% p.a, towards mental agony of Rs.5,000/- each and cost of the proceedings.

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

          Complainants are resident of  Savadi village of Ron Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Green-gram 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 & 2 appeared through counsels. DGP appeared for OP No.3 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 crop Green-gram and Groundnut during the year 2004-05 for Kharif 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 Kharif season 2006-07.  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 judgment on 31.07.2008, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.291/2009 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru,   the   same   came  to  be dismissed on 19.02.2009. OP No.1 preferred R.P.No.1694/09  before Hon’ble the National Commission, same came to be allowed on 25.05.2009 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          6.       After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor again passed judgment on 23.05.2010 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.2319/10 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and the same came to be allowed and remanded for fresh disposal.

7. After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor again passed judgment on 06.01.2016 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.477/16 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. Notice served to complainants. BVN. Adv. filed power for complainant No.2 and also power for LRs of complainant No.1& 3 as both are same person, application allowed but LRs are not  brought on record.   Complainant No.2 & 4 are one and the same and filed their affidavits and examined as PW-1 & PW-2 and got marked documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13.  Notice served to OP No.1 to 3. OP No.1 & 2 filed power. DGP appeared for Op No.3 and filed written version.  Op No.1 to  3 are not chosen to file their affidavit evidence. OP No.1 filed written arguments. 

9.       No argument advanced on both side, as no presentation made out.

          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 & PW- 2 filed affidavits and reiterated contents of complaint. PW-1 &   PW-2 have stated that, Complainants are resident of  Savadi village of Ron Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Green-gram 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 settled 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. So, there is no shortfall for the year 2004-05 of Green-Gram and Groundnut for Kharif season.

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 2004-05 and complaint filed after 2 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 19^th  day of September- 2022)

           (Shri. D.Y. Basapur)                                  (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)

                  PRESIDENT                                        WOMAN MEMBER

-: ANNEXURE :-

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S:

PW-1 : Veerappa Huchappa Gedageri,

PW-2 : Kodlappa Shivjappa Adagetti,

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1to 5: RTCs

Ex.C-6:  Form No.8 A

Ex.C-7: Crop certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-8 & 9: Proposal form.

Ex.C-10 : Form No.8 A

Ex.C-11 : Crop certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-12 & 13: Proposal form.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

           -NIL-

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

               -NIL-

              (Shri. D.Y. Basapur)                                     (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)

                  PRESIDENT                                              WOMAN MEMBER