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 loan insurance amount as shown in the schedule para No.4 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 RonTaluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Groundnut and Onion 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 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 & 2 appeared through counsel and OP No.3 appeared through DGP. OP  No.1 to  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 during the year 2003-04 in  Kharif season.  As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall to the crops for the year 2003-04 in Kharif  season of Damabal Hobli. So, there is no deficiency of service committed by this OP.  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 have 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 stated that, they are acting as collecting agent and mediator between the complainants and OP No.1, they have received the proposal forms, premium amount and submitted to OP No.1.  They are not responsible and there is no deficiency of service committed by OP No.2. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          5. The brief facts of the 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 year 2003-04 in Kharif season. Complainants are not a consumer to this OP and are only having 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 judgment on 25.02.2009 and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.1737/09 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes   Redressal   Commission,   Bangalore,   the   same   came  to  be allowed on 26.11.2009 and same came to be allowed and remanded for fresh disposal.

          7.       After receipt of the records, notice were issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor, again passed judgment on 27.05.2010 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an  Appeal No.2702/10 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, notice were issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor, again passed judgment on 14.12.2015 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.298/16 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.

          9. After receipt of the records, notice were issued to the parties. Notices served to complainant NO.1 to 6 and Ops. Complainant No.6, 1, 3 & 4 filed affidavit and examined as PW-1 to PW-4 and marked the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-17.    KVK, and SAM, Adv. filed power for OP No.1 & 2. and DGP. filed M/A for OP No.3 and written version. Ops have not chosen to file affidavit evidence and no documents were marked.  

          10.     OP No.1 filed written arguments. Heard the arguments on both sides.

          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:  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. 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 Doni village of RonTaluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Groundnut and Onion 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 settle the claim.  So, Ops have committed the deficiency of service.  

15. Ex.C-1 to Ex.17 are 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 for crops.  So, there is no deficiency of service committed by the OP No.1. As per assessed yield in respect of Kharif season 2003-04 issued by statistical department for Groundnut of Dombal,  Hobli, threshold yield is 94, assessed yield is 148 and shortfall is NIL.

16. Complainants claiming compensation for the loss of crops for the year 2003-04 and complaint filed after 4 years in the year 2008. Mere allegation made in the complaint without producing documentary evidence to show that there is a shortfall and not settled the claim, complainants are not entitled the relief. 

          17.     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.         

             18.  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 20^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: Shivabasavagouda Hanamanthgouda

PW-2: Mallappa Totappa Yalavatti

PW-3 : Hamapanna Halappa Oli

PW-4 : Siddangouda Madegouda Jayangoudar

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 to 7: RTCs

Ex.C-8 to 13: Bank Receipts

Ex.C-14 & 15: Legal notices.

Ex.C-16: Letter from Dist. Statistical Officer, Gadag dtd:29.09.2012.

Ex.C-17: Letter from Joint Director, Crop Insurance dtd:03.11.2009.

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