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, 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.

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

          Complainants are  resident of  Maranabasri village Tq:Ron, Dist:Gadag and the They have grown 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.

2.       In pursuance of notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel. OP No.3 appeared through DGP and Op No.2 remained absent. OP No.1 & 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 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 no deficiency of service committed by Op No.1.  Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          4.       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. 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.

          5.       After hearing, my predecessors passed common judgment on 21.05.2010 and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.3229/10 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.

          6.       After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor again passed common judgment on 30.12.2015 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.388/16 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore and the same came to be allowed on 03.02.2020 and remanded for reconsideration.  

          7.       After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties. Notice served to complainant No.1 to 5, 7 to 12 and 15 they are called out absent and not chosen to file affidavit evidence. OP No.2 remained absent.  Complainant No.6 and 13 are reported as dead, no LRs are brought on record. Notice of complainant No.14 is un-served as not known. Affidavit of complainant No.1 filed on 11.03.2010 is examined as CW-1 and documents marked as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15. DGP appeared for Op No.3 and filed the written version. Praveenkumar B.R. Manager of Op No.1 filed affidavit and examined as RW-1 and marked as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-7.

          8.       Heard the arguments on both side.

          9.       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 relief?

3. What Order?

       10.   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

              11.   Point No.1 & 2:- The points are taken together to avoid the repetition of facts.

            12.   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 filed affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. PW-1 has stated that, OP No.1 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop 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.

          13.     RW-1 has reiterated the contents of the 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 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.

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. Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-7 reveal that as per crop cutting experiment there is no shortfall, as OP No.1 specifically mentioned in the affidavit.
 

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 2005-6 and complaint filed after 4 years in the year 2009. Even complaint is barred by limitation. Complainant No.6 and 13 are reported as dead and their LRs are not brought on record.  Complainant No.1 to 5, 7 to 12 and 15 are remained absent, inspite of service of notice and they have not chosen to file their affidavit evidence. Without proving the case with affidavit evidence and documents complainants are not entitled the reliefs. Mere allegation made in the complaint without producing over and documentary evidence, complaint cannot be allowed.

          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.

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 12^th  day of August- 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: Hajaratbi W/o Mabusab Balesabanavar

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 to 12: RTC

Ex.C-13 & 14: letter written by Dist. Statistical officer. 

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

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:Instructions to Nodal Banks.  

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

Ex.OP-4:Copy of statement showing yearwise yield for the hobli proposed for

              notifications under RKBY for 2004-05.

Ex.OP-5:Copy of Assessed yield data in respect of Kharif Crops 2004-05

              issued by the Director of Economics and statistics, Bangalore.

Ex.OP-6:Copy Average yield data for the crops/Hoblis notified under RKBY   

              during 2005 Kharif.

Ex.OP-7: Details of Past 5 Yrs, assessed yield data

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

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT            WOMAN MEMBER