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 crop loan insurance amount of Rs.1,04,790/- with interest 12% p.a. Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and cost of the proceedings.

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

          Complainants are resident of  Kiratageri village, of Gadag Taluk and District  They have grown, Sunflower, Bengalgram, Jowar, Safflower and Wheat  for the year 2003-04 in Rabi season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule through OP No.3. Due to shortage of rain, complainants have suffered loss.  Inspite of repeated request to Ops, they did not settle the claim for Sunflower and Safflower and other crops settled on 06.07.2005. Ops have committed the deficiency of service.  Hence, filed this complaint.

          2.       In pursuance of service of notice, OP No.1 appeared through their counsel. OP No.3 appeared in person.  DGP appeared for OP No. 2. OP No.1 to 3 filed their 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 crops of , Sunflower, Bengalgram, Jowar, Safflower and Wheat  for the year 2003-04 for Rabi season.   As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall for crop of Sunflower and Safflower and there was shortfall for other crops and already settled the claim. 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.2 are as under:

          OP No.2 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crops for  the  Rabi season 2003-04.  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. The brief facts of  written version filed by OP No.3 are as under:

          OP No.3 have denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop during the Rabi season 2003-04.  OP No.3 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.3. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          6. After hearing, my predecessor passed common judgment on 22.04.2008, 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 has preferred R.P No.1367/09 before Hon’ble National Commission, and same came to be allowed 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 29.01.2010 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment. OP No.1 has  again preferred an Appeal No.928/10 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and the same came to be allowed on 30.06.2010 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          8.       After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor again passed common judgment on 14.12.2015 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment. OP No.1 has  again preferred an Appeal No.302/16 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru 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. Notice served to  Complainant No.3, 4,5,9 and 10. Complainant No.2,6,7,8 are dead  and LRs are brought on record. Complainant No.1,5,4(b), 9(b) 3, 7(a), 8(a) and 10 filed affidavits and examined as PW-1  to  PW-8 and got marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to
Ex.C-24.  KVK, Adv. filed power for OP No.1 and affidavit and examined as RW-1 and got marked documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-6. OP No.3 filed affidavit and examined as RW-2.   DGP filed M/A for OP No.2.

10.     Op No.1 filed written arguments. Heard, 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-8 have   filed affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. PW-1 to PW-8 has stated that, complainants are resident of  Kiratageri village, of Gadag Taluk and District  They have grown, Sunflower, Bengalgram, Jowar, Safflower and Wheat  for the year 2003-04 in Rabi season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule through OP No.3. Due to shortage of rain, complainants have suffered loss.  Inspite of repeated request to Ops, they did not settle the claim for Sunflower and Safflower and other crops settled on 06.07.2005. Ops have committed the deficiency of service. 

15. Ex.C-1 to Ex.24 are documents not disputed by the Ops. RW-1 & RW-2 field affidavit and  OP No.1 specifically stated that, there was no shortfall as per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics for crop of Sunflower and other crops there was shortfall and already settled and there is no deficiency of service committed by the OP No.1. As per assessed yield in respect of Rabi season 2003-04 issued by statistical department for Sunflower of Betageri,  Hobli, threshold yield is 203, assessed yield is 263 and shortfall is NIL.   Ex.OP No.1 to 6 reveal that , there is no shortfall for  Sunflower during the year 2003-04 and already settled the claim for other crops as admitted by complainants. Ex.C-24 notification issued by D.C. reveals that there was drought condition in the district. If, there was drought declared by the government, then settled the compensation to all farmers irrespective of crop insured. As per guidelines, Ops taken the shortfall yield of previous 5 years.

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 : Prakashgouda S/o Tammangouda Patil

PW-2 : Maheshgouda Tammangouda Patil

PW-3 : Naveen S/o Basanagouda Patil

PW-4 : Moulasab S/o Kashimsab Nadaf

PW-5: Shivakumar Tammangouda Patil

PW-6: Shekharappa S/o Gurappa Bakaningi

PW-7: Smt. Shivavva W/o Sangappa Talavageri

PW-8: Yallangouda S/o Kallangouda Sankangoudra

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 :  Bayanyadi.

Ex.C-2 : Legal notice.

Ex.C-3 to 5:Postal receipts.

Ex.C-6 to 8:Postal acknowledgments.

Ex.C-9 to 18: RTCs

Ex.C-19: Bank receipts.

Ex.C-20 : Letter from Director dtd:25.06.2004.

Ex.C-21: Letter from Dist: Statistical Officer, Gadag.

Ex.C-22 & 23: Death certificates.

Ex.C-24: Notification issued by D.C.Gadag.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

RW-1 : Praveen Kumar. B.R.

RW-2 : Bhimsen S/o Pralhad Pujar,  

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.Op-1: Scheme and Guidelines.

Ex.Op-2 : Instructions to Nodal Banks.

Ex.Op-3 : Copy of the Settlement of claim for Rabi 2003-04 dtd:27.05.2005.

Ex.OP-4 : Assessed Yield, Rabi 2003-04.

Ex.Op-5 & 6:  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