HON'BLE Mrs. YASHODA BHASKAR PATIL,

                                                                B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) M.Ed.,

                                                                    WOMAN MEMBER                  

V/s

//  JUDGMENT  //

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI.RAJU. N. METRI, MEMBER

          The complainants has filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, for the loss of crop as shown in the
para-4 with interest @ 18% p.a, Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and cost of the proceedings.

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

       The complainants stated that, they have sowed Onion in Sy. No.356/P measuring 1-60 Hect. and Greengram crop, in Sy.No. No.356/P measuring 1-60 Hec. of Mulgund village, during the year 2005-06 Kharif season and insured the crop with OP No.1 and also paid premium through the Nodal Bank.  The crops were destroyed due to lack of rain and Gadag Taluk declared as a drought affected taluk.  Thus, complainant did not get the yield and suffered heavy loss.   In spite of bringing this to the notice of OPs by issuing notice to OP No.1, the OP No.1 has failed to settle the insurance amount of the complainant, hence there is a deficiency in service and prayed to order the OP’s to pay the maximum insured amount along with court expenses.

        3.   In pursuance of service of notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel.  OP No.2 appeared through D.G.P and  OP No.3 to 5 remained absent. Op No.1 & 2 filed written version.

        4.  The brief facts of the Written Version filed by OP No.1 are as under:

                  OP No.1 has stated that, complaint is not maintainable, both in law and on facts.  It is submitted that NAIS, RKB is implemented in the country under the order of Government of India vide ref. 13011/15/99 credit II dated 16.07.1999 of the Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operation, New Delhi w.e.f 01.10.1999.  All the insured farmers growing the crops in the defined area are deemed to have suffered short fall in their yield, the scheme seeks to provide coverage against such contingency indemnity shall be calculated as per the following formula (Shortfall in/Threshold yield) x sum insured of the farmer = Indemnity claims where are shortfall in yield = Threshold yield - Actual yield for the defined area. As per NAIS claims in general, will be disbursed through nodal banks as per shortfall in the notified area for the respective notified crop during Kharif/Rabi 2005-06 the OP have settled all eligible claims as per the scheme to all insured farmers under area approach. The Director of Economics and Statistics had furnished crop wise, hobli wise yield data for all crops during the season. As per the data, there is no shortfall in the area claimed by the complainant and claims that the complainant is hiding the material facts and fraudulently claiming the undue amount and prays to dismiss the complaint.

       5. The brief facts of the Written Version filed by OP No.2 are as under:

        OP No.2 denied the contents of the complaint and contended that, complainants are not  a consumer and no way concerned to the case as the role of this OP is advise and create awareness among the farmers regarding crop insurance and hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.

        6.  In order to prove the case, complainants have filed affidavit evidence and examined as PW-1 & PW-2 and got marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to C-8.   OP No.1 filed affidavit evidence and examined as RW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.Op-1 to Ex.Op-10. Op No.2 to 5 have not chosen to file evidence on affidavit and no documents have been produced.   

          7.       After hearing, my predecessor passed common judgment on 30.09.2008 and partly allowed. OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.167/2009 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru   the   same   came  to  be allowed and remanded for fresh disposal.

         8.    After hearing, my predecessor passed judgment on 28.05.2010 and partly allowed. OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.2747/2010 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru   the   same   came  to  be allowed on 28.10.2010.

9.     After hearing, my predecessor passed judgment on 30.12.2015 and partly allowed. OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.386/2016 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru   the   same   came  to  be allowed on 03.02.2020.

        10. After receipt of the records, PSD, Adv. taken notice for Complainants. Notice served to OP No.1 to 4 and notice of OP No.3 not returned. KVK, Adv. filed power for OP No.1. DGP filed M/A for OP No.2 and written version.  Op No.3 to 5 remained absent. Op No.1 filed affidavit and examined as RW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.Op-1 to Ex.OP-10. OP No.2 to  5 not chosen to file affidavit evidence.

        11.   The points for consideration to us are as under:

            1. Whether the complainants prove that, there is a                     shortfall of the crops and deficiency in service                                on the part of OPs?

            2. Whether the complainants are entitled the                                            relief?

3.  What Order?

         12.  Our findings to 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:- Both points are taken together to avoid the repetition of facts.    The learned counsel for the complainant argued that, as per contents of complaint and affidavits with documents, complainants have proved the case and entitled for the relief.  The learned DGP and KVK, Adv. argued that, complainants have failed to prove the case against OP No.1 & 2.

          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 & PW-2 filed affidavits and reiterated contents of complaint. PW-1 and PW-2 have stated that, they have sowed Onion in Sy. No.356/P measuring 1-60 Hec. and Greengram crop, in Sy.No. No.356/P measuring 1-60 Hec. of Mulgund village, during the year 2005-06 Kharif season and insured the crop with OP No.1 and also paid premium through the Nodal Bank.  The crops were destroyed due to lack of rain and Gadag Taluk declared as a drought affected taluk.  Thus, complainant did not get the yield and suffered heavy loss.   In spite of bringing this to the notice of OPs by issuing notice to OP No.1, the OP No.1 has failed to settle the insurance amount of the complainant, hence there is a deficiency in service. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 are not disputed by Ops.

15. RW-1 field affidavit and reiterated the contents of the written version. RW-1 has stated 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 2004-05 for Kharif season there is no shortfall. Ex.Op-1 to Ex.Op-10 reveal that Ops have adopted the crop cutting experiments as per guidelines and there is no shortfall. 

16. 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 2005-06 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.

        17.   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.      

             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.

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 23^rd 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 : Veerappa @ Veeranna S/o Basavaraj Wali,

PW-2 : Basavaraj S/o Maraveerappa Wali,

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1: Record of Rights

Ex.C-2: Legal notice.

Ex.C-3 to  7: Postal acknowledgements.

Ex.C-8: Letter from District Statistical Officer, Gadag

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

RW-1: Praveen Kumar B.R.

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.OP-1 : Scheme and Guidelines.

Ex.OP-2 : Instruction to Nodal Banks.

Ex.Op-3 : Kharif-2005 Nodal Bankwise Claims.

Ex.Op-4 : Statement showing yearwise assessed yield (in KGS/Hect) for

               the Hoblis proposed for notification under RKBY for 2004-05.

               (Greengram rainfed)

Ex.Op-5 :Assessed yield 2004-05.

Ex.Op-6: Average yield data for the crops/Hobli notified under RKBY

              2005 Kharif (Greengram Rainfed) dtd:03.03.2006.

Ex.Op-7 : Statement showing yearwise assessed yield (in KGS/Hect) for

               the Hoblis proposed for notification under RKBY for 2004-05.

               (Onion Unirrigated)

Ex.Op-8 : Copy of assessed yield for Kharif 2004-05 issued by Director   

               of Economics and Statics (Onion Rainfed) dtd:15.04.2005.

Ex.Op-9 :Copy of the average yield data for the crops/Hobli notified

               under RKBY during 2005 Kharif (Onion Rainfed)

Ex.Op-10 : Details of the past 3 years assessed yield data   

                  District/taluk/Hobli wise (Greengram and Onion)

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

        MEMBER                 PRESIDENT              WOMAN MEMBER