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 of crop insurance amount with interest @ 18% p.a. mental agony and financial loss and cost of the complaint.

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

          Complainants are resident of Abbigeri village of Ron Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Sunflower for the year 2002-03 in Rabi season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule through OP No.4. 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, 3 & 4 appeared through counsel, OP No.2 appeared through DGP.  OP No.1, 2 & 4 filed written version and OP No.3 adopt the written version of OP No.4.

          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  during the year 2002-03 for Rabi season.   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.2 are as under:

          OP No.2 denied the various allegations, and contended that, the  complainants are not a consumer, as 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 14.12.2006, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.380/2007 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bangalore,   the   same   came  to  be dismissed on 06.03.2007.  Op No.1 preferred R.P No.2806/07 before Hon’ble National Commission, and same came to be allowed and remanded for fresh disposal.

          7.       After receipt of the records, notices were 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 No.2672/10 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.

          8.       After receipt of the records, notices were issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor, again passed common judgment on 14.01.2016 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an Appeal No.498/16 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore and the same came to be allowed on 03.02.2020 and was remanded for fresh disposal.

          9. After receipt of the records, notices were issued to the parties. Notice served to complainant No.3,6,8,9, and Ops.  Complainant No.1,2,4,5,7 & 10 are reported as dead. KVK, Adv. filed power for OP No.1 and SSH, Adv. filed power for OP No.3 & 4. DGP filed M/A and written version for OP No.2. Complainant No.1,6, 9 & 3  are filed affidavit and examined as PW-1 to PW-4 and got marked documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-36.  OPs are not chosen to file affidavit evidence.

10.     No argument advanced on both side inspite of sufficient time given.

          11.     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?

       12.   Our findings on the above points are as under:

              Point No. 1:  In the negative.

              Point No. 2:  In the negative.  

              Point No. 3:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

           13.    Point No.1 & 2:- The points are taken together to avoid the repetition of facts.

            14.   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-4 have filed affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. PW-1 to PW-4 have  stated that, complainants are resident of Abbigeri village of Ron Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Sunflower for the year 2002-03 in Rabi season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule through OP No.4. 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.

15. Ex.C-1 to Ex.36 are Khate Utare, Certificate issued by village accountant, Proposal forms and other  documents not disputed by the Ops. In written version OP No.1 specifically stated that, there was no shortfall as per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics and there is no deficiency of service committed by the OP No.1. Ex.Op No.1 pertaining to the year 2003-04. But, complainants claiming for the year 2002-03.  However, as per assessed yield in respect of Rabi and Annual crops for the Year 2002-03 of  Naregal Hobli for Sunflower (RF), during the year 2002-03 issued by Directorate of Economics statistics dtd:23.07.2003,  which is marked as Ex.OP-3 in CC No.203/06,  it reveals that, Assessed is 226. In written version dtd:29.09.2009, Assessed  yield is 338, Threshold yield is mentioned as 206.   So, Assessed yield is more than threshold yield. Therefore, there is no shortfall for the Rabi season of Sunflower during the year
2002-03.

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 15^th day of November - 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 : Sangappa Laxmappa Tegginkeri

PW-2: Gurappa Shankarappa Malagi

PW-3 : Drakshayini W/o Sommappa Harlapur

PW-4 : Chinnappa Doddabasappa Basavaradder

COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 : Form No.8A

Ex.C- 2 & 3 : Form No.24.

Ex.C-4 : Form No.8A.

Ex.C- 5: Form No.24.

Ex.C-6 & 7: Form No.8A.

Ex.C-8:Form No.24.

Ex.C-9: Form No.8A

Ex.C-10 to 27: Proposal forms.

Ex.C-28: Legal notice.

Ex.C-29 to 32:Postal acknowledgments.

Ex.C-33 : D.C.Order Gadag dtd:07.06.2003.

Ex.C-34 : Letter from Dist. Statistical Officer, Gadag Dtd:24.09.2009.

ExC-35:Kharif 2002-03 Govt. Order.

Ex.C-36: Death certificate.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

   -NIL-

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.OP-1:  Letter from Dist. Statistical Officer, Gadag dtd:11.06.2009.

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

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT            WOMAN MEMBER