DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, | Behind Tahasildar Office, Basaveshwar Nagar, GADAG |
|
| |
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.39/2007 DISPOSED ON 26th DAY OF AUGUST 2022 |
|
|
| |
BEFORE: | | | HON'BLE MR. D.Y. BASAPUR, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) PRESIDENT | | HON'BLE Mrs. YASHODA BHASKAR PATIL, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) M.Ed., WOMAN MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. RAJU. N. METRI, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) MEMBER |
|
Complainants :- | 1. 2. 3. 3a) 4. 4a) 4b) 4c) 4d) 4e) 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 11a) 11b) 11c) 11d) 11e) 11f) 11g) 12) 12a) 12b) 12c) 12d) 12e) 12f) 12g) | Kataraki Shrishailappa Hanamappa Kataraki Yallappa Basappa Kataraki Basappa Yallappa Since dead reptd. By his LR Yallappa Basappa Kataraki. Santoji Veerabhadrappa Honakerappa Since dead his LRs Vijayalakshmi W/o Yachcharappa santoji Chaitra S/o Yachcharappa Santoji. Mesha S/o Yachcharapap Santoji. Veena S/o Yachcharappa Santoji Veerbhadrappa S/o Yachcharappa Santoji, Complainant No.4b) to 4e) are minor represented by his natural Guardian Mother complainant No.4a) Gourimath Prakash Gurubasayya Prakash Gurubasayya Gourimath Gourimath Arun Basavaraj Patil Santosh Shekharagouda Byali Renavva Yachcharappa Byali Shankarappa Basappa Byadagi Yachcharappa Marabasappa Since dead reptd.by his LRs Smt. Girija W/o Yachcharappa Byadagi Sangmesh S/o Yacharappa Byadagi Chaitra W/o Mahesh Byadagi Janavi S/o Mahesh Byadagi. Jeevan S/o Mahesh Byadagi Complainant No.11d) & 11e) are minor represented by their his natural Guardian mother complainant No.11 c) Kavita W/o Parameshgouda Patil Sujata W/o Basavaraj Dharmannavar Santoji Shivappa Honekerappa Since dead reptd by his LRs. Siddalingappa S/o Shivappa Santoji Paravva @ Kasturi W/o Sharanappa Shivamurti Sharada W/o Shivappa Santoji Shankuntala S/o Shivappa Santoji Basavaraj S/o Shivappa Santoji Kalakappa S/o Shivappa Santoji Manjula W/o Mahantesh Itagi All complainants are Occ:Agril. R/o Holealur Tq:Ron Dist:Gadag. Since dead his LRs. (Rep. by Sri.S.H.Mandasoppi, Adv.) |
V/s
Respondents :- | 1.
2. 3. | Officer/Incharge 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 Niyamit. R/o: Kotabal 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.72,863/- as shown in schedule 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 Holealur of Ron Taluk Dist:Gadag. They have grown Sunflower 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. Hence, filed this complaint.
2. In pursuance of notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel, OP No.3 appeared through DGP and Op No.2 remained absent. Op No.1 & 2 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 Sunflower during the year 2003-04 for Rabi seasons. As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was a shortfall and already settled the eligible claims. 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 judgment on 26.06.2007, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation. OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.185/07 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, the same came to be dismissed. OP No.1 preferred R.P.No.1218/08 before Hon’ble the National Commission, 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 judgment on 23.03.2010 and awarded compensation. Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.2321/10 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and the same came to be allowed on 13.12.2010 and remanded for fresh disposal.
7. After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties. Complainant got amended the complaint in para-1 for the year 2003-04 instead of 2002-03. OP No.1 got amended the previous written version filed on 08.06.2007 and also filed written version on 24.09.2009 and got amended the written versions. Again OP No.1 filed written version on 25.02.2016 and contended that, After hearing, my predecessor again passed common judgment on 18.06.2016 and awarded compensation. Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.2153/16 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and the same came to be allowed on 09.07.2019 and remanded for fresh disposal.
8. After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties. Complainant
No. 4, 11 and 12 are reported as dead and LRs are brought on record. Complainant No.1,4 (4a) 5 and 6 are one and the same persons. Complainant No.5,8 to 10 and 12 are filed affidavits and examined as PW-1 to PW-9 and got marked documents as Ex.C-1 to 31. DGP appeared for Op No.3 and filed written version. Notice served to Op No.1 & 2. KVK filed power and affidavit for OP No.1 and examined as RW-1 and marked documents Ex.OP No.1 to Ex.OP-5. Notice to OP No.2 served and called out absent.
9. Heard the arguments 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-9 filed affidavits and reiterated contents of complaint. PW-1 to PW-9 have stated that, Complainants are resident of Holealur of Ron Taluk Dist:Gadag. They have grown Sunflower 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-31 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. So, there is no shortfall for the year 2003-04 of Sunflower for Rabi season. Ex.OP-1 letter issued by Dist. Statistical department reveals that crop cutting experiment reports submitted. Ex.OP-2 reveals that for the year 2003-04 crop cutting experiment conducted as per report of statistical for the year 2002-03 there was a shortfall. Ex.OP-3 Guidelines Ex.OP-4 Instructions to Nodal Banks and Ex.OP-5, 6 & 7 are not disputing. Whereas, as per the report during the year 2003-04 there was no shortfall. Hence, there was no deficiency of service committed by the OPs.
15. The learned counsel for complainant argued that, OP No.1 admitted the in the written version dtd:23.10.2007 as there was a shortfall of 808 kg, 184kg and 58 kg. In Subsequent written version stated that, there was no shortfall. Its true that, written version filed on 23.10.2007 admitted the shortfall as in complaint claiming for the year 2002-03. There is no dispute regarding shortfall for the year 2002-03. In fact complainant claiming relief for the year 2003-04 by amending the complaint on 15.10.2015 after 7 years of the filing complaint. Thus, OP No.1 in written version filed after amendment contended that, there was no shortfall during the year 2003-04.
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 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.
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 the Negative.
//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 26th 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 : Prakash Gourimath
PW-2 : Shrishailappa Hanamappa Kataraki
PW-3 :Vijayalakshmi Yachcharappa Santoji
PW-4 : Prakash Gurubasaya Gourimath
PW-5 : Santosh Shekhargouda Patil
PW-6: Renappa Yachcharappa Byali
PW-7 : Shankarappa Basappa Byali
PW-8: Siddalingappa Shivappa Santoji
PW-9: Yallappa Basappa Kataraki
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S
Ex.C-1: Notice.
Ex.C-2 & 3: Courier receipts.
Ex.C-4 & 5: Proposal form.
Ex.C-6 & 7 : RTCs.
Ex.C-8: Proposal form.
Ex.C-9 : RTC
Ex.C-10 & 11: Proposal form.
Ex.C-12: RTC.
Ex.C-13:Proposal form.
Ex.C-14:RTC.
Ex.C-15 to 17:Proposal form.
Ex.C-18 :RTC.
Ex.C-19 to 21 : Proposal forms
Ex.C-22:Death certificate.
Ex.C-23:LRs certificate issued by Village accountant.
Ex.C-24: Death certificate.
Ex.C-25:LRs Certificate issued by Village accountant.
Ex.C-26 & 27: RTCs
Ex.C-28 : Death certificate.
Ex.C-29 to 31: LRs. Certificates.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:
RW-1 : Praveen Kumar.B.R.
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:
Ex.OP-1: Letter from Dist. Statistical department Gadag dtd:11.06.2009.
Ex.OP-2 : Attested copy of the Scheme and Guidelines.
Ex.OP-3 : Attested copy of the Instruction to Nodal Banks.
Ex.Op-4 : Attested copy of the settlement of claim for Rabi 2003-04 season by the OP
No.1 dtd:27.05.2005.
Ex.OP-5 :Attested copy of the yield data and area sown for the period from 1998 to
2003 issued by the Government of Karnataka dtd:28.06.2019.
Ex.OP-6 : Details of the past 5 years Assessed yield data-District/Taluka Hobli wise.
(Shri Raju N. Metri) (Shri. D.Y. Basapur) (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)
MEMBER PRESIDENT WOMAN MEMBER
