V/s

JUDGEMENT

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

          The complainants have filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Ops are directing to pay the compensation an amount of Rs.75,153/-  as shown in the schedule, para No.4 with interest 18% p.a., mental agony and cost of the complaint.

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

          Complainants are  resident of  Maranabasri village Tq:Ron, Dist:Gadag and the They had sowed Green-gram for the year 2005-06 in Kharif season and paid the premium amount through OP No.2.  Due to failure of rain and changes of climate, they loss the crop.  Inspite of repeated request to Ops did not settle the claim.  So Ops have committed the deficiency of service.  Hence, filed this complaint.

          3.       In pursuance of service of notice, OP No.1 appeared through their counsel. OP No.3 appeared through DGP and Op No.2 remained absent. OP No.1 & 3 filed written version. 

          4.       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 of Green-gram during the Kharif seasons 2005-06.  As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall to the said crops in Kharif season. So there is no deficiency of service committed by Op No.1.  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 Kharif season 2005-06. Complainants are not a consumer of OP No.3, this Op has only 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 a common judgment on 21.05.2010 and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.3230/10 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes  Redressal   Commission,   Bangalore,   the   same   came  to  be allowed on 31.01.2011 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          7.       After receipt of the records, notices were issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor again passed a common judgment on 14.12.2015 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.310/16 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 issued to the parties. Notice served on the complainant No.1 to 13 and Op No.1 to 3. Complainant No.4 filed and examined as PW-1 and documents marked as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15. DGP appeared for Op No.3 and filed the written version.  Sri. Praveenkumar B.R. filed affidavit and examined as RW-1 and marked as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5.    Op No.2 & 3 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 in service by the OPs?

2. Whether the complainants prove that, they are          

entitled for the 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.

           On careful perusal of the materials placed before us, case remanded for fresh disposal with a direction take the affidavit evidence of all complainants. PW-1 has filed affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. PW-1 has stated that, complainants are  resident of  Maranabasari village Tq:Ron, Dist:Gadag and the they had sowed Green-gram for the year 2005-06 in Kharif season and paid the premium amount through OP No.2.  Due to failure of rain and changes of climate, they loss the crop.  Inspite of repeated request to Ops did not settle the claim.  So Ops have committed the deficiency of service.

          13.     RW-1 has reiterated the contents of the written version filed by Op No.1 in affidavit. RW-1 has stated that complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop of Green-gram during the Kharif seasons 2005-06.  As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall to the said crops in Kharif season. So there is no deficiency of service committed by Op No.1. 

14.     Ex.C-1 to C-15 RTCs and other documents are not disputing by the Ops. The main contention of Op No.1 is that there was no shortfall as per yield data report issued by statistical department. In written version  stated as per yield data for Rabi 2003-04 of Naregal Hobli for Greengram mentioned the Threshold  yield as 82 and Assessed yield as 259 and shortfall as NIL.  Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 reveals that as per crop cutting experiment there is no shortfall, as OP No.1 specifically mentioned in the affidavit. Ex.Op No.1 to 5 corroborated the defense taken in the written version that, there is no shortfall. Ops have followed the guidelines, conducted crop cutting experiments.
 

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 2005-06 and complaint filed after 3 years in the year 2009.  Inspite of service of notice and complainants have not chosen to file their affidavit evidence except complainant No.1.  Without proving the case with affidavit and documentary evidence, complainants are not entitled the reliefs. Mere allegation made in the complaint without producing oral  and documentary evidence to show that there is a shortfall and they are not entitled the relief.  

          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.

Office is directed to send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

                      (Dictated to the stenographer, directly on computer and corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this 16^th  day of January- 2023)

           (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: Shri. Veerappa Basappa Maradi

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 to 13: RTCs

Ex.C-14: Copy of the letter written by Dist. Statistical Officer dtd:31.08.2012.

Ex.C-15: Copy of 2005-06 crop cutting details.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

RW-1:Praveen Kumar B.R.

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.OP-1:Copy of Scheme and guidelines.

Ex.OP-2: Copy of Instructions to Nodal Banks.  

Ex.OP-3: Copy of Kharif-2005 Nodal Bank wise claims.

Ex.OP-4: Copy of Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojana – Assessed Yield in KGs/Hect.

               for 2005-06.

Ex.OP-5: Copy of details of Past 5 years Assessed Yield Data-

               District/Taluk/Hoble wise.

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

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT            WOMAN MEMBER