DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, | Behind Tahasildar Office, Basaveshwar Nagar, GADAG |
|
| |
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.304/2008 DISPOSED ON 29th DAY OF JULY 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. 1 a) 1 b) 1 c) 1 d) 2 2 a) 2 b) 2 c) 2 d) 3) 4) 5) 6) | Mahagundappa Malikajappa Karmudi His LRs. Gangavva W/o Mahagundappa Karmudi Age: 66 Years, Occ:Agril. Umesh Mahagundappa Karmudi, Age: 42 Years, Agril. Kumaresh Mahagundappa Karmudi, Age:39 Years, Agril. Chandrakant Mahagundappa Karmudi Age: 34 Years, Agril. Kotagi Kotteppa Shankrappa His LRs. Smt. Meenakshi W/o Koteeppa Kotagi Age:64 Occ:Agril Smt. Sweta W/o Umesh Karmudi Age:33 Occ:Agril. Smt. Rashmi W/o Kumaresh Karmudi Age:31 Occ:Agril. Girish Koteppa Kotagi Age:29 yrs, Occ:Agril. Satya Narayan Bando Kulkarni Age: Major, Occ:Agril Satya Narayan Bando Kulkarni Age:Major, Occ:Agril Shekappa Basappa Kalkonnavar Age:Major, Occ:Agril. Hanamappa Govindappa Kurkundi Age:Major, Occ:Agril. All Complainants Occ: Agriculturists, R/at: Naregal, Tq: Ron, & Dist: Gadag. (Rep. by Sri.R.K.Honawad, Adv.) |
V/s
Respondents :- | 1.
2. 3. | Officer/Incharge Agriculture insurance company, Shankarnaryan Building-25 M.G.Road, Bangalore. (Rep. by Sri.K.V. Kerur, Advocate) The Manager, Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank, Br. Naregal, Naregal Tq:Ron Dist:Gadag. (In person) 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 crop loan insurance with interest @ 18% p.a, towards mental agony Rs.5,000/- each and cost of the proceedings of Rs.5,000/- each.
1. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
Complainants are resident of Naregal village of Ron Taluk. They have grown Onion, Sunflower, Groundnut and Bengal-gram, for the year 2003-04 in Khariff/Rabi both season and paid the premium amount through OP No.2. The Government declared drought and waived the revenue tax of the Agricultural lands. However, OPs did not pay the insured amount. Complainants have separately mentioned the extent of land, premium amount, insurance amount, season and name of crop in detail. Inspite of repeated request to Ops did not settled the claim. Ops have committed the deficiency of service. Hence, filed this complaint.
2. In pursuance of notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel. Op No.2 appeared in person, Op No.3 appeared through DGP and 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 crop during the Khariff/Rabi seasons 2003-04. As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall to the Onion Groundnut and Sunflower both seasons. There is shortfall to the Bengal-gram in Ron Hobli of Gadag District during Rabi season. Already settled the claim of Bengalgram for shortfall amount. 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 Khariff/Rabi seasons 2003-04. After collecting the premium submitted to OP No.1 and also after shortfall amount for Bengal-gram to the Rabi season is credited to complainants account. So there is no deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. To prove the case, complainant No.1 filed affidavit on 05.08.2008.
6. After hearing, complaint is partly allowed in common judgment in Complaint Nos.272/08, 273/08, 283/08, 286/08, 290/08 and 296/08 along with this complaint on 30.09.2008 and awarded compensation. OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.1636/2009 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, the same came to be allowed on 27.08.2009 and remanded for fresh disposal.
7. After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties. After hearing, my predecessor again passed judgment on 23.03.2010 and awarded compensation. Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.1640/2010 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore and the same came to be allowed on 30.09.2020 and remanded for fresh disposal.
8. After receipt of the records, notice 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.275/16 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 issued to the parties. complainant No.1 & 2 are reported as dead and their LRs brought on record. DGP appeared through for Op No.3 and filed the written version.
10. 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 Khariff/Rabi seasons 2003-04. OP No.3 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.
11. Affidavit filed by complainant No.1 on 05.08.2008, complainant No.1 (c) and 2 (d) filed affidavits on 27.10.2021, complainant No.3 & 4 are one and the same, filed affidavit on 26.11.2021 complainant No.5 affidavit filed on 26.11.2021 and complainant No.6 filed on 08.11.2021 and examined as PW-1 to 6 and got marked documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13. Sri. KVK, Advocate for OP No.1 and affidavit dtd:21.06.2022 of Praveenkumar B.R. and examined as RW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.Op-5.
12. Heard the arguments on both side.
13. 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?
14. 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
15. Point No.1 & 2:- The points are taken together to avoid the repetition of facts.
16. On careful perusal of the materials placed before us, PW-1 to 6 filed affidavits in-lieu of their examination in chief and reiterated the contents of the complaint. PW-1 to 6 have stated that, complainants are resident of Naregal village of Ron Taluk. They have grown Onion, Sunflower, Groundnut and Bengal- gram, for the year 2003-04 in Khariff/Rabi both season and paid the premium amount through OP No.2. The Government declared drought and waived the revenue tax of the Agricultural lands. However, OPs did not pay the insured amount. Complainants have separately mentioned the extent of land, premium amount, insurance amount, season and name of crop in detail. Inspite of repeated request to Ops did not settled the claim. Ops have committed the deficiency of service
17. Per contra RW-1 has reiterated contents of written version filed by Op No.1 in affidavit. RW-1 has stated that OP No.1 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop during the Khariff/Rabi seasons 2003-04. As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall to the Onion Groundnut and Sunflower both season. There is shortfall to the Bengal- gram in Ron Hobli of Gadag District during Rabi season. Already settled the claim of Bengal-gram for shortfall amount.
18. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13, the proposal forms and RTCs and other documents are not disputed by the OPs. Ex.Op-1 Guidelines Ex.Op-2 instructions to Nodal Bank Ex.Op-3 & 4 settlement of claim Ex.OP-5 letter submitted by statistical department clearly goes to show there is no shortfall for the crop of Groundnut, Onion, Sunflower for both seasons. Shortfall amount of Bengal-gram for Rabi season is already settled and credited to complainants account.
19. 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 Negative.
20. 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 29th day of July- 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: Mahagundappa Mankajappa Karmudi
PW-2: Kumaresh Mahagundappa Karmudi
PW-3: Girish Kotteppa Kotagi
PW-4: Satyanaraya Bando Kulkarni
Pw-5 : Shaikappa Basappa Kalakonnavar
PW-6: Hanumappa Govindappa Karkundi
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S
Ex.C-1 to 8 : RTCs
Ex.C-9: Dist. Statistical letter dtd:03.10.2012.
Ex.C-10: Copy joint Director, crop insurance Section, Bangalore letter
dtd:03.11.2009.
Ex.C-11: Copy of Statistical Department, Gadag letter dtd:10.09.2012.
Ex.C-12 : Death Certificate.
Ex.C-13 LRs Certificate.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:
RW-1 Praveenkumar B.R.
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:
Ex.OP-1:Copy of guidelines.
Ex.OP-2 & 3: Copy of instruction to Nodal Banks.
Ex.Op-4 & 5: Copy of settlement of claim of Kharif 2003-04.
Ex.Op-6: Copy of details past 5 year assessed yield data.
Ex.Op-7:Copy of letter submitted by the Director of Economics and Statistics
Bangaluru.
(Shri Raju N. Metri) (Shri. D.Y. Basapur) (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)
MEMBER PRESIDENT WOMAN MEMBER
