JUDGMENT - Justice G.G. LONEY, President :---This is an appeal against the order of Dist. Forum, Ahmednagar dated 13-8-1993 passed in Complaint No. 106 of 1991. The complainant lodged a complaint before the Dist. Forum alleging that there has been deficiency in the service of the opposite party in a crop insurance scheme floated by the opposite party Nos. 3 4 and executed by the opposite party Nos. 1 2. 2. Shortly stated the facts are that the complainant had obtained a loan of Rs. 15,000 from Bank of Maharashtra, 1st opponent on 3-10-1986 for his crop. The said amount was granted to the complainant under the Crop Insurance Scheme for rabi season in the year 1986-87. The complainant alleged that he paid Rs. 450/- to 1st opponent towards the premium amount of the insurance. The complainant further alleged that under the said scheme his crop was insured and in case of failure his loss was to be indemnified by the Insurance Company namely the Maharashtra State Level Crop Insurance Cell, present appellant. The complainant alleged that due to scanty rain fall, the jawar crop totally failed and therefore, he claimed Rs. 22,500/- as compensation from the opposite party under the said scheme. It is also stated by the complainant that the officers of the 1st opponent visited the complainants farm and were fully satisfied about the failure of the crop and said that the complainant would get his Insurance claim. The branch officers of the 1st opponent accordingly informed their head office on 22-12-1986. The complainant also obtained the required certificates from Village Officer/Village Development Officer and Secretary of Gram Panchyat regarding the failure of crop due to drought condition. The complainant alleged that he was surprised when on 17-7-1991 the opposite party informed him that they were unable to settle his insurance claim. The claimed amount of the insurance was not deposited in complainants account by the opposite party No. 1 i.e. Bank of Maharashtra and therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the Dist. Forum with the demand to deposit Rs. 22,500/- in his loan account for the year 1986-87. The opposite parties filed their written versions. 2nd opponent i.e. present appellant contended that the complainant had no right to institute the complaint. It is stated that there is no deficiency in the service. Forum with the demand to deposit Rs. 22,500/- in his loan account for the year 1986-87. The opposite parties filed their written versions. 2nd opponent i.e. present appellant contended that the complainant had no right to institute the complaint. It is stated that there is no deficiency in the service. It is also contended that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties and therefore, the complaint was not maintainable. It is further submitted by the opposite party Nos. 1 2 that the comprehensive crop insurance scheme is a Social Welfare Scheme of Govt. of India which has been entrusted to opposite party No. 2 for implementation for the State Govt. As per opposite party No. 2, the said scheme is not a commercial scheme and the scheme envisages the protection of the farmer in case of crop failure to the extent of 1.50 per cent of crop loan availed of by them for cultivating only those crops which are identified by the Govt. of Maharashtra. During the course of enquiries, the State Govt. and the Central Govt. i.e. opposite party Nos. 3 4 respectively were added as parties to the dispute as they floated the scheme. It is contended on behalf of opposite party Nos. 3 4 on the lines of the stand taken by the opposite party No. 3. The Dist. Forum discussed in the impugned order the entire crop loan scheme and concluded that there is deficiency in the service of the opposite party in as much as the complainants legitimate claim has not been settled. 3. We have heard Shri Mokashi, advocate for the appellant and the respondent No. 1 by Ms. Bhide, advocate and respondent No. 2 by Shri Shinde, advocate. 4. According to Shri Mokashi, the Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim since an individual has no right to file a complaint for claiming any benefit under the Crop Insurance Scheme in question. It is also contended that no individual right exists in the complainant for claiming the amount of compensation. We fail to understand this argument. The complainant has become a member of Crop Insurance Scheme floated by opposite party Nos. 3 4 and executed by opposite party Nos. 1 2 and he certainly is entitled to the benefits promised under the scheme. The complainant continued paying Rs. 450/- towards premium. We fail to understand this argument. The complainant has become a member of Crop Insurance Scheme floated by opposite party Nos. 3 4 and executed by opposite party Nos. 1 2 and he certainly is entitled to the benefits promised under the scheme. The complainant continued paying Rs. 450/- towards premium. Thus there is element of hiring of the service of the Insurance scheme executed by opposite party Nos. 1 2 under section 2(1)(o) of C.P. Act. Under the aforesaid provision any deficiency in the service of the Insurance Company is justiciable under the C.P. Act as the legal right has been extended to the consumers through the consumer foras, if there are any allegations as regards the deficiency in the service of Insurance Company. The consumer in such a case must show that he was a potential user of the service and the service was hired for consideration. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had hired the service of Crop Insurance Scheme and had paid the premium to the opposite party. The amount of premium amounted to Rs. 450/- was actually debited from the complainants loan account maintained by 1st opponent and was paid to opposite party No. 2. Under these circumstances, the complainant has been proved to be a consumer of the service in question, to be rendered by opposite party Nos. 1 2 jointly. There is no dispute about the failure of the crop on account of drought for which there is ample evidence on record. Under these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to receive the benefit under the Insurance Policy by way of the settlement of his Insurance Claim. It is found that the complainants claim has been denied on technical grounds which is not justified under the facts and circumstances of this case. We therefore, do not find any substance in the contention raised by Shri Mokashi. 5. Another contention raised by Shri Mokashi is that the opposite party Nos. 3 4 i.e. State Govt. Central Govt. were made parties unnecessarily as no claim was made against them. This contention does not survive for consideration since opposite party Nos. 2 3 are not parties in this appeal. No appeal has been filed by the opposite party Nos. 3 4 although the order has been passed against them by the Dist. Forum. Central Govt. were made parties unnecessarily as no claim was made against them. This contention does not survive for consideration since opposite party Nos. 2 3 are not parties in this appeal. No appeal has been filed by the opposite party Nos. 3 4 although the order has been passed against them by the Dist. Forum. It is therefore, presumed that the opposite party Nos. 3 4 have acquiesced in the impugned order. 6. Another contention raised by Shri Mokashi is that the admissible loan to be granted to the complainant was Rs. 10,625/- whereas the Bank had granted the amount of Rs. 11,000 to the complainant which is contrary to the guide lines. The statement of Shri Mokashi is totally out of context since the allegations are about the Bank of Maharashtra and we find that the Bank of Maharashtra has not filed any appeal against the impugned order. 7. Ms. A.P. Bhide, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 submitted that the claim of the complainant has been admitted with calculation and therefore, there is no point in submission that the complainant is not entitled for any claim. According to Ms. Bhide the impugned order passed by the Dist. Forum requires to be maintained, as the Dist. Forum has taken into consideration all the circumstances. Shri Shinde, Advocate on behalf of Bank of Maharashtra argued that the Bank has filed civil suit bearing No. 288 of 1991 claiming the sum of Rs. 50,000/- against the complainant. However, it is clarified that the aforesaid amount does not include the claim in question granted by the Dist. Forum. Therefore, the submissions made by Shri Shinde are totally irrelevant to the points in dispute. No other points were raised. 8. We have given our careful consideration to the contentions raised by both the sides and after perusal of the impugned order and considering the material on record we are satisfied that there is no substance in this appeal and hence it requires to be dismissed. Hence we pass the following order : ORDER 9. Appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.