State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Veerabhadragowda vs The Manager Canara Bank N Others on 21 May, 2012
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF MAY 2012 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAMANNA : PRESIDENT SMT.RAMA ANANTH : MEMBER
Appeal No.202/2011 & 203/2011 Appeal No.202/2011 Veerabhadragowda Age 39 yrs,Occupation Agriculture R/o Bada,Ta Shiggaon, Haveri Dist.
(By Shri/Smt Nirmala B Hansi) Appeal No.203/2011 Mallikarjuna Gowda V Patil, Age43 year,Occupation Agriculture R/o Dada,Ta Shiggon, Dist: Haveri.
(By Shri/Smt Nirmala B Hansi) Appeal No.202/2011 & 203/2011
1. The Manager Canara bank Canara Bank, Bankapur Village, Shiggaon, Haveri Dist.
2. The Regional Manager, A.I.C.of India Ltd., No.18 Krishi Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Hudson Circle, Bangalore.
(Respondents are same in both the appeals) (By Shri/Smt Haridasbhat in both the appeals) Complainant before the DF .Appellant/s Complainant before the DF .Appellant/s
-Versus-
Opposite Parties before the DF .Respondent/s O R D E R S HONBLE JUSTICE MR.K. RAMANNA : PRESIDENT
1. Both the appeals have been preferred by the respective appellants/complainants, challenging the correctness and legality of the order of dismissal of their complaints passed by the DF, Haveri in Complaint Nos. 267/2010 and 259/2010 connected with other cases vide order dated 07.09.2010 and 06.09.2010 respectively on various grounds.
2. That apart they have also filed I.A. I under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 95 & 105 days caused in preferring their appeals and I.A.II U/O 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking permission to produce the Record of Rights stated to be for the year 2003-04 in respect of their lands. In support of I.A. I and II they have also filed affidavit evidence explaining the cause for the delay in preferring the appeal and to permit them to produce the documents.
3. Though separate order has been passed by the DF in the aforesaid complaints of the appellants/complainants, the reasons assigned in dismissal of their complaints are one and the same so also the respondents in these appeals who are the OPs before the DF are one and the same. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals, to avoid repetition of facts and law, we have taken up these matters together heard and being disposed of by this common order.
4. So after service of notice, respondents/OPs appeared through their respective counsels and resisted the appeals contending that since the appellants in both the appeals have utterly failed to prove that they are the owners of the land in question and failed to produce the documents.
Therefore, the DF has rightly dismissed the complaints. That apart they have not shown any sufficient and reasonable grounds to condone the delay as well as to permit them to produce the documents after disposal of their respective complaints.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the records.
6. In view of the above said facts, the point that arises for our consideration in these appeals are:
1.
Whether the appellants in both the cases have shown sufficient and reasonable grounds to condone the delay of 95 and 105 days in preferring their appeals?
2. Whether the appellants have shown sufficient and reasonable grounds to permit them to produce the R of R after disposal of their complaints?
3. Whether the DF is justified in dismissing the complaints filed by the appellants /complainants?
4. If so, what order?
7. Points No. 1 to 3:- All these three points have taken up together as they are interlinked with each other. No doubt that, the appellant in Appeal No.202/2010 has filed a complaint No. 267/2010 and the appellant in Appeal No. 203/2011 has filed a complaint No. 259/2010 and they came to dismissed vide order dated 07.09.2010 and 06.09.2010 respectively by the DF.
8. We have gone through the reasons assigned by the appellants in both the cases with regard to the I.A. I and II. To condone the delay, the appellants are expected to explain each days delay caused in preferring the appeals. The DF, Haveri has passed the orders in Complaint No. 267/2010 and Complaint No. 259/2010 on 07.09.2010 and 06.09.2010 respectively which are connected with other cases. Though the orders came to be passed on 07.09.2010 and 06.09.2010 but, the copies were signed by the Assistant Registrar-Cum-Assistant Administrative Officer of the DF, Haveri on 17.09.2010. According to the appellants, due to lack of knowledge they could not produce the R of R at the time of enquiry before the DF which is unintentional. Since they happens to be the poor agriculturists and barrowed a huge amount for cultivation and due to lack of knowledge and poverty they could not file the appeals within the statutory period. The endorsement made by the Assistant Registrar-Cum-Assistant Administrative Officer of the DF, Haveri at page 13 of the certified copy was on 17.09.2010 and it might have been served on their advocate or by post. But the contents of the affidavits have not been specifically stated that on which date the certified copies were served to the appellants or to their advocate from the DF and the reasons assigned by them are vague. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, that the appellants have not shown any sufficient and reasonable grounds to condone the delay in preferring the aforesaid appeals.
9. As regards the I.A.II filed Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for production of the documents is concerned, the copies of the R of R in respect of land bearing Sy. Nos. 49/1 and 49/2 of Bad Village, Bankapur Hobli, Shiggao Taluk, Haveri District discloses that the appellants are the owners and in possession of the lands to the extent of 7-23 Guntas and 7-24 Guntas respectively. Out of their lands, the appellant in Appeal No. 202/2010 has raised paddy in 2.00 Acres, Groundnut in 2-23 Acres, Banana in 1-00 Acre and Maize in 2-00 Acre. Likewise, the appellant in Appeal No. 203/2011 has raised paddy in 2-00 Acres, Cotton in 2-24 Acres, Maize in 2-00 Acres and Jowar in 2-00 Acres. But the copies of R of Rs at Annexure-B do not disclose the date on which they were supplied. The affidavits do not disclose why they could not produce the R of Rs before the DF during enquiry. The persons who knocked the doors of the DF is expected to prove their cases. The affidavits of the Village Accountant has not been produced in support their cases. If really they were in possession and enjoyment of the said lands and raised the aforesaid crops, they ought to have been produced the R of Rs during the enquiry before the DF. Therefore, production of documents at the later stage i.e., after dismissal of their respective complaints without assigning any acceptable reasons cannot be entertained. It is the duty of the appellants to explain whether they have kept those R of Rs in their respective houses and when they have taken R of Rs which they produced before this Commission from the Village Accountant. If he would have taken such type of R of Rs from the concerned Village Accountant, he ought to have produced the same at the time of enquiry before the DF. Since the reasons assigned by the appellants appears to be vague and without acceptable reasons, I.A. I and II filed by the appellants in Appeal Nos. 202/2011 and 203/2011 are liable to be dismissed. On merits also, the appellants have no case. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the DF has rightly dismissed the complaints filed by the appellants on the ground of non production of the documents. Added to that we have considered the decisions rendered by various Honble High Courts. The Honble High Court of Calcutta in case of Sunilchandra Vs. Hemendra Kumar Deb, reported in AIR 1985 (Cal.,) 233, 242, 243 at Paragraph Nos. 2,3 and 4 held that the additional evidence should not be allowed to give an opportunity to the plaintiff to fulfill his desire for enforcing the contract.
10. In the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs. P. Bala Prabhavatamma reported in AIR 1990 (AP) 144 held that the Appellate Court should not receive additional evidence (either oral or documentary), as a matter of fact courts, unless such a requirement under order 41, Rule 27 is satisfactorily established by the party seeking to produce such an evidence.
11. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the appellant has not shown that it was impossible for him to produce the Record of Rights in respect of his land before the DF to show that he was the owner in possession of the lands for which he has taken crop insurance policy. Therefore, we do not notice any perverse or incorrect findings in the order passed by the District Forum. Accordingly, we pass the following:
O R D E R Both the appeals are dismissed. The order passed by the District Forum, Haveri in Complaint Nos.267/2010 & 259/2010 connected with other cases are confirmed.
Copy of the original of this order shall be kept in Appeal No. 202/2011 and a copy of it shall be placed in Appeal No. 203/2011.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Rhr*