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 as shown in the schedule with interest, mental agony and cost of the proceedings.

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

          Complainants are resident of  Doni village of Mundargi Taluk.  They have grown Onion and Groundnut for the year 2003-04 in Kharif season and paid the premium amount through OP No.2 for  Kharif season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule. 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.2 remained absent. OP No.3 appeared through DGP and Op No.1 &  3 filed written version. 

          3.       The brief facts of the 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 Onion and Groundnut for the Kharif 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 Kharif season. There is no deficiency of service committed by this OP.  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 season 2003-04. OP No.2 is not a consumer as only supervising power over the other Ops.  So there is no deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          5. After hearing, complaint is partly allowed in common judgment passed on 25.02.2009 and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.1735/09 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bangalore,   the   same   came  to  be allowed on 26.11.2009 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 27.05.2010 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 has again preferred an  Appeal No.2700/10 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.

7.       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 has again preferred an  Appeal No.296/16 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore and the same came to be allowed on 03.02.2020 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          8. After receipt of the records, notice was issued to the parties. Complainant No.4 is reported as dead and LRs are brought on record. Notice served to complainant No.1 to 3, & 5 and Ops 1 to 3.   Complainant No.5, 1 to 3 and 4(a)  filed affidavit and examined as PW-1 to PW-5 and marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-07.   KVK, Adv. filed power for OP No.1 and DGP filed M/A for OP No. 3.  Op No.2 remained absent. Ops have not chosen to file affidavit evidence.

          9.       Heard the arguments on both sides.

          10.     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?

      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-5 have filed affidavits and reiterated contents of complaint. PW-1to PW-5 have stated that, complainants are resident of  Doni village of Mundargi Taluk.  They have grown Onion and Groundnut for the year 2003-04 in Kharif season and paid the premium amount through OP No.2 for  Kharif season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule. 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-7 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 for Dambal Hobli, for crop of Onion, threshold yield is 3946 assessed yield is 6864  and shortfall is NIL, Groundnut threshold yield is 333 assessed yield is 648 and shortfall is NIL for the year 2003-04 for Kharif season and there is no shortfall. 

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 2003-04 and 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.

          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 and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 19^th day of October- 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 : Nandish Shivappa Harti

PW-2 : Nandish Shivappa Harti

PW-3: Kashappa Narayanappa Alavandi

PW-4 : Kenchangoudar Lesangouda Hiregoudar

PW-5: Mahantesh Fakkirappa Alavandi

PW-6: Shankrappa Shekhappa Harti

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 & 2: Bank receipts.

Ex.C-3 to 5:RTCs

Ex.C-6 & 7: Letter from Dist: Statistical officer Gadag.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

                       NIL

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

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

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT            WOMAN MEMBER