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.1,73,640/- as with interest @ 12% p.a, towards mental agony of Rs.5,000/- each and cost.

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

          Complainants are resident of  Kurahatti 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.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 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 2002-03 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 2002-03.  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 20.11.2007, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru,   the   same   came  to  be dismissed. OP No.1 preferred R.P.No.3271/08 before Hon’ble the National Commission,Delhi 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 common judgment on 23.03.2010 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.2311/10 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 and also filed written version  after amending the complaint.  Again filed written version and contended that there was no shortfall. 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.2155/16 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. 6 to 11, 15 & 16 reported as dead and LRs of complainant No.6,7,9 & 10 are  brought on record. Notice served to complainant No.14 who is absent.  Complainant No.1 & 13  are one and the same and  filed affidavits. Complainant No.2,3,12,17,19 & 20, 6(c) 7(c) 9 (a) 10 (a) filed and affidavits and examined as CW-1 to CW-10  and got marked documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-90.  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-7. 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:

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. CW-1 to CW-10 filed affidavits and reiterated contents of complaint. CW-1 to  CW-10 have stated that,  Complainants are resident of  Kurahatti 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.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.     RW-1 has filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of the written versions RW-1 has stated that, OP No.1. Complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop Sunflower during the Rabi seasons 2003-04.  As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall to the said crops in Rabi season.

15. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-90  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.  In the written version filed by Op No.1 shown the threshold yield, assessed yield and shortfall for the year 2003-04 for Rabi season there is no shortfall. 

 16. The learned counsel for complainant argued that, OP No.1 admitted the in the written version as there was a shortfall of 36 kg and 63 kg. In Subsequent written version stated that, there was no shortfall. Its true that, in written version admitted the shortfall as per 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 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.

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 2003-04 and complaint filed after 4 years in the year 2008. 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.

          18.     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 16^th  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 : Channabasayya Revanasiddayya Vastrad

PW-2 : Sharanappa Gurappa Palled Urf Angadi

PW-3 : Honakereppa Mallappa Huyilagol

PW-4 : Yallappa Kariyappa Balagoda

PW-5 : Prakash Mudiyappa Shirhatti

PW-6: Veeresh Parappa Maradi

PW-7 : Yallappa Kalakappa Kuri

PW-8 : Ningappa Mailarppa Huyilagol

PW-9 : Vasant Raghvendra Uddar @ Huddar

PW-10 : Irayya S/o Ningayya  Bhusnoormath

PW-11: Nirmala W/o Parasappa Gaddi.

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 & 2  : Postal receipts.

Ex.C-3 : Notice

Ex.C-4 to 6: Form No.8 A

Ex.C-7 & 8 : Certificates issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-9 to 28: Proposal forms.

Ex.C-29 to 72 : RTCs

Ex.C-73to 90 :Receipts issued by Bank.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

RW-1 : Praveen Kumar.B.R.

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.OP-1: Scheme & Guidelines.

Ex.OP-2 : Instructions to Nodal Banks.

Ex.OP-3 : Copy of the settlement of claim for Rabi 2003-04 season.

Ex.OP-4 : Statement showing the No. of experiments and Average yield in Kgs/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 : Details of the past 3 years Assessed Yield date District/Taluka/Hobli wise

               (Sunflower Rainfed and irrigated)

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

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT            WOMAN MEMBER