DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, | Behind Tahasildar Office, Basaveshwar Nagar, GADAG |
|
| |
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.596/2008 DISPOSED ON 21st 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) 3b). 3c). 3d). 3e). 3f) 3g) 3h) 4) 5) 5a) 5b) 5c) 6) 7) 8) | Basappa Mudakappa Ragati (Dead) Hanamappa Mallappa Kirikiri Basavaneppa Mudakappa Lakkundi Since dead his LRs. Smt. Girijavva W/o Basavaneppa Lakkundi, Age: Major Occ: Agril. Smt. Suvarna W/o Rangappa Katti Age:Major Occ:Agril. Basavaraj S/o Basavaneppa Lakkundi Age: Major Occ:Agril. Mudakappa S/o Basavaneppa Lakkundi Age:Major Occ:Agril. Manjunath S/o Basavaneppa Lakkundi Age:Major Occ:Agril. Rachappa S/o Basavaneppa Lakkundi Age:Major OccAgril. Ishwarappa S/o Basavaneppa Lakkundi Age:Major OccAgril. Smt. Sarswati W/o Fakirappa Meti Age:Major OccAgril. Mallappa Hanamappa Kundralli Age:Major OccAgril. Chandrashekharappa Devappa Megalamani, (Since dead his Lrs) Saroja W/o Chandrashekharappa Megalamani, Age:Major Occ:Agril. Manjunath Chandrashekharappa Mayagalmani, Age:Major Occ:Agril. Shaila W/o Vishwanath Mulimani Age:Major Occ:Agril. Parmeshwarappa Hanamantappa Jalawadagi, Age:Major Occ:Agril. Smt. Imambi W/o Moulasab Totad Age:Major Occ:Agril. Sharanappa Fakkirappa Kundralli Age:Major Occ:Agril. All complainants Age:Major Occ:Agril. R/o Hirevaddatti & Mevundi Tq:Mundargi Dist:Gadag. (Rep. by Sri.B.B.Magadi, Adv.) |
V/s
Respondents :- | 1.
2. 3. | Officer Incharge,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, Corporation Bank, Hirevaddatti Tq:Mundargi Dist:Gadag. (Rep. by Sri.S.A.Morabad, Adv.) 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 as shown in schedule para No.4 with interest, towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- each towards cost of the proceedings.
1. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
Complainants are resident of Hirevaddatti village of Mundargi Taluk Dist:Gadag. They have grown, Onion Sunflower and Groundnut for the year 2003-04 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. Hence, filed this complaint.
2. In pursuance of service of notice, OP No.1& 2 appeared through counsel, OP No.3 appeared through DGP. Op No.1 to 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 during the year 2003-04 for Kharif season. As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall So, there is no deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The brief facts of the written version filed by OP No.2 are as under:
OP No.2 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop during the Kharif seasons 2003-04. After collecting the premium submitted to OP No.1. So there is no deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. 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 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.
6. After hearing, my predecessor passed common judgment on 25.02.2009, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation. OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.1757/2009 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, the same came to be allowed on 26.11.2009 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 27.05.2010 and awarded compensation. Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.2704/10 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.
8. 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.300/16 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.
9. After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties. Notice served to complainant No.2,4,6,7 & 8 they are remained absent. Complainant N0.1, 3, 5 dead LRs of complainant No.3 & 5 brought on record. Complainant No.1, 3(f) 4, 6, 7 & 8 and examined as CW-1 to CW-6 and got marked documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10. DGP appeared for Op No.3 and filed the written version. Notice served to Op No.1 & 2. Op No.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and OP No.1 filed affidavit evidence and examined as RW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.Op-12. .
10. Heard, arguments on both sides.
11. 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?
12. 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
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. CW-1to CW-6 has filed affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. CW-1 to CW-6 has stated that, complainants are resident of Hirevaddatti village of Mundargi Taluk Dist:Gadag. They have grown, Onion Sunflower and Groundnut for the year 2003-04 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.
15. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 documents are not disputing by the Ops. RW-1 filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of the written version filed by the OP No.1. RW-1 has stated that, OP No.1 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crops during the year 2003-04 for Kharif season. As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall. So, there is no deficiency of service.
16. Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-12 clearly goes to show that, Ops have adopted the guidelines issued by the governments and there is no shortfall.
17. 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 2003-04and complaint filed after 4 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 and not settled the claim.
18. 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.
19. 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 21st 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 : Basappa Mudakappa Ragati
PW-2 : Rachappa S/o Basavaneppa Lakkundi
PW-3 : Parmeshwarappa Hanamantappa Jalawadagi,
PW-4 : Smt. Imambi W/o Moulasab Totad
PW-5 : Sharanappa Fakkirappa Kundralli
PW-6 : Manjunath Chandrashekharappa Mayagalmani
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S
Ex.C-1to 5: RTCs.
Ex.C-6 to 8 : Bank receipts.
Ex.C-9 to Letter from Dist. Statistical Department Gadag Dtd:03.10.2012.
Ex.C-10 : Letter from Joint Director Crops Insurance Bangalore dtd:03.11.2009.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:
RW-1 : Praveen Kumar B.R.
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:
Ex.OP-1:Scheme guidelines.
Ex.Op-2 : Copy of the Government order for Kharif 2004 under R.K.B.Y. Scheme
Dtd:24.05.2004.
Ex.OP-3:Assessed Yield 2004-05.
Ex.OP-4:Statement showing yearwise assessed yield (in KGS/Hect) for the Hoblis
proposed for notification under RKBY for 2004-05. Kharif (Groundnut
Unirrigated)
Ex.Op-5:- Assessed yield 2004-05.
Ex.OP-6: Statement showing year wise assessed yield (in KGS/Hect) for the Hoblis
proposed for notification under RKBY for 2004-05. Kharif (Groundnut
Un-irrigated)
Ex.Op-7 : Assessed yield 2004-05.
Ex.Op-8: Statement showing the year wise assessed yield in KGs/Hectors for the
Hoblis proposed for notification under RKBY for 2004 Kharif (Sunflower)
Ex.OP-9 : Assessed yield 2004-05.
Ex.Op-10: Statement showing the year wise assessed yield in KGs/Hectors for the
Hoblis proposed for notification under RKBY for 2004-05 Kharif (Sunflower)
Ex.Op-11: Assessed yield 2004-05.
Ex.Op-12 : 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
