DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, | Behind Tahasildar Office, Basaveshwar Nagar, GADAG |
|
| |
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.159/2007 DISPOSED ON 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 |
|
|
| |
BEFORE: | | | HON'BLE MR. D.Y. BASAPUR, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) PRESIDENT | | HON'BLE Mrs. YASHODA BHASKAR PATIL, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) M.Ed., WOMAN MEMBER HON'BLE Mr. RAJU. N. METRI, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) MEMBER |
|
Complainants :- | 1. 2. 2 a) 2 b) 2 c) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 8 a) 8 b) 8 c) 8 d) 9. 9a) 9b) 9c) 9d) 10. 11. 11a) 11b) 11c) 11d) 11e) | Shiddayya Rachayya Nandikeshwar Somanagouda Ajjangouda Patil Since dead his LRs. Shanta W/o Somanagouda @ Sharat Patil Goutam S/o Somanagouda @ Sharat Patil Ishwaraya S/o Somanagouda @ Sharat Patil Kashappa Basappa Maradi Basanagouda Virupakashagouda Patil Sangappa Veerappa Maradi Sharnappa Mahalingappa Agasar Genappa Hanamappa Madar Doddappa Hanamappa Madar Since dead his LRs. Kasturevva W/o Doddappa Madar Renavva W/o Kantappa Hadimani Shilpa S/o Doddappa Madar Mailarappa S/o Doddappa Madar Piddappa Mailarappa Gandoodi Since dead his LRs. Basavva W/o Piddappa Gandoodi Mailarappa S/o Piddappa Gandoodi Manjula W/o Shanmukhappa Lakkannavar Ratna S/o Piddappa Gandoodi Sharnapap Shankrappa Narasapur Sharanayya Shiddayya Gumati Since dead his LRs. Shantavva W/o Sharnayya Gumati Shivakumar S/o Sharnayya Gumati Ratnavva W/o Shiddayya Gantimath Drakshyani S/o Sharnayya Gumati Mallayya S/o Sharnayya Gumati All complainants are Age:Major R/o Kurahatti Tq:Ron Dist:Gadag. (Rep. by Sri.S.H.Mandasoppi, Adv.) |
V/s
Respondents :- | 1.
2. 3. | Officer/Incharge 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, Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Bank Niyamit. R/o: Kotabal Tq: Ron Dist: Gadag. (Absent) 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 of Rs.66,600/- with interest @ 12% p.a, towards mental agony of Rs.5,000/- to each and cost of the complaint.
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 2003-04 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 a shortfall and already settled the eligible claims. 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.3270/08 before Hon’ble the National Commission, 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.2310/10 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. 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.159/07 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. 1 to 3, 7 to 19 are reported as dead and LRs of complainant No.2,8,9 and 11 are brought on record. Notice served to complainant No.10 who is absent. Complainant No.4,5,6,10,2(a),8(a), 8(d) and 11(a) are filed affidavits and are examined as CW-1 to CW-8 and got marked documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-52. 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:
- 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?
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-8 filed affidavits and reiterated contents of complaint. CW-1 to CW-8 have stated that, complainants are resident of Kurahatti village of Ron Taluk Dist:Gadag. They have grown Sunflower for the year 2003-04 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 version. RW-1 has stated that, 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 shortfall and settled the claim to the said crops in Rabi season.
15. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-52 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, written version filed admitted the shortfall as in complaint, claiming for the year 2003-04. There is no dispute regarding shortfall for 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 reliefs. Mere allegation made in the complaint without producing documentary evidence to show that there is no 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 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 16th 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 : Basanagouda Virupakashagouda Patil
PW-2 : Sangappa Veerappa Maradi
PW-3 : Sharnappa Mahalingappa Agasar
PW-4 : Sharnapap Shankrappa Narasapur
PW-5 : Shanta W/o Somanagouda @ Sharat Patil
PW-6: Kasturevva W/o Doddappa Madar
PW-7 : Mailarappa S/o Piddappa Gandoodi
PW-8: Shantavva W/o Sharnayya Gumati
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S
Ex.C-1 & 2 : Postal receipts.
Ex.C-3 : Notice
Ex.C-4: Form No.8 A
Ex.C-5 : Certificate issued by village accountant.
Ex.C-6 to 16: Proposal forms.
Ex.C-17 to 40 : RTCs
Ex.C-41 :Receipt issued by Bank.
Ex.C-42 to 52: Bank receipts.
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 Hoblies (Sunflower). 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
