ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri V.K. Agarwal, President :_ 1. This appeal, under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order Dt. 04.11.2004 in Complaint No. 33/2004 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), dismissing the appellant's complaint. 2. Indisputably the complainant/appellant is an agriculturist having 1.89 acre of unirrigated and situated at Village Gheena in Tahsil Dondi Lohara. It is also not in dispute that as the complainant was a non-loanee farmer. He had voluntarily insured his crop sown after 31.07.2002 under the Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojana, 2002 ('RKBY' for short). It is also now not in dispute that the complainant/ appellant paid premium of Rs. 164.97 on 12.08.2002. As per the scheme the said amount was sent by respondent No. 1 the nodal agency, to the implementing agency respondent NO.2 GIC. It is further not in dispute that the respondent NO.2 by their letter Dt.09.04.03 intimated the nodal agency respondent No.1 that the Government of India had decided that non-Ioanee farmer who have sown their Kharif crop between 1st to 15th August, 2002, could submit their proposals for crop insurance under 'RKBY' till 15.08.2002. It was further stated in the said letter that some of the non-Ioanee farmers had opted for insurance of their crop to the extant of 150% of the threshold yield. However, the Government of India has decided that in case of such non-loanee farmers (who had sown their crop between 01 to 15 August, 2002) the insurance coverage, would be limited to the extent of price of threshold yield. By the said letter Dt. 09.04.03 the declaration submitted by nodal agency respondent No.1 was returned to it and they were directed to furnish amended declaration afresh, within a week, as per the aforementioned instructions of the Government of India. It is also not in dispute that the whole of the premium was also returned by the respondent NO.2 GIC to nodal agency respondent NO.1. 3. The complainant averred that since he had obtained insurance cover by payment of premium, he was entitled to loss of crop sown by him on 12.08.2002. He further averred that he had demanded the assured amount of Rs.9,427/- by his letter 02.02.03 and thereafter also served legal notice Dt. 23.09.03 to the respondents. However, since his claim was not settled, he preferred complaint before the District Forum. 4. He further averred that he had demanded the assured amount of Rs.9,427/- by his letter 02.02.03 and thereafter also served legal notice Dt. 23.09.03 to the respondents. However, since his claim was not settled, he preferred complaint before the District Forum. 4. The defence raised by the respondent No.1 nodal agency in its written version in substance was, that since respondent NO.2 GIC had refunded the premium with declaration form, sent to it by nodal agency-respondent No. I, hence the complainant could not be paid the insurance amount. It was also averred that premium amount has been refunded and credited to the account of complainant/appellant on 18.02.2004. 5. Respondent NO.2 GIC in their written version raised preliminary objections and averred that the complainant is not their consumer as the GIC was implementing the scheme on behalf of the Central Government. It was further averred that the premium was returned as per the orders of the Central Government. It was also averred that short fall of the crop was not notified by the State Government. Hence, the complainant was not entitled to any compensation. 6. The District Forum in the impugned order upheld the contentions of respondent NO.2 and held that since the decision to refund the amount was taken by the Government as a policy decision therefore plea raised by the complainant/appellant would not constitute consumer dispute. The complaint was accordingly dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the parties were heard. Record of the District Forum perused. 8. Firstly the preliminary objection that the plea of the complainant does not constitute consumer dispute deserves to be considered. 9. In the above context, as noticed above, the District Forum has recorded a finding that the dispute raised by the complainant does not amount to consumer dispute and therefore the complaint was not competent. On due consideration of the said plea and facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the said finding cannot be sustained. It is clear that 'RKBY' was promulgated for the protection of the risk to the crop of the agriculturists and to afford benefit of security to the agriculturists such as complainant. The agriculturist was required to pay premium under the 'RKBY' to the nodal agency, who was to remit the same after consolidating the premia received from several agriculturists, along with the prescribed declaration form to the implementing agency-the arc. The agriculturist was required to pay premium under the 'RKBY' to the nodal agency, who was to remit the same after consolidating the premia received from several agriculturists, along with the prescribed declaration form to the implementing agency-the arc. On completion of formalities as above, the implementing agency the G IC was made responsible, under the said scheme, to pay compensation to the extent of loss in accordance, with the formula and principles laid down in the said scheme 'RKBY'. The GIC could claim reimbursement of the compensation paid by it, from the State and the Central Government. 10. It would therefore be clear that the agriculturist was required to pay premium and was thereupon entitled to compensation. Thus, compensation was payable to the agriculturist, who participated in the scheme, in consideration of the premium paid by him. In case of loanee farmer the premium was a component of the loan granted to him and was to be automatically debited to his loan account; while in case of non-loanee farmer availing of benefit under the scheme, was at the option of the agriculturist. [n the instant case indisputably, the complainant/appellant was a non-loanee farmer and opted for availing the benefit under 'RKBY' and had admittedly paid the requisite premium, in order to avail of such insurance coverage. Therefore, consideration had been paid by the complainant to the nodal agency respondent No.1 for which it was entitled to certain commission charges; and the nodal agency thereafter was required to remit it to the implementing agency respondent No.2, who was also presumably benefited from the said scheme and had agreed to implement the scheme in that manner. Therefore, it appears that the complainant was the consumer of the respondents and non payment of compensation to him under the said scheme gives rise to cause of action, to him. Undoubtedly, the dispute of non-payment of insurance amount to him under the said scheme 'RKBY', in the foregoing facts and circumstances, would constitute consumer dispute. Hence, it is clear that the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was competent. 11. Now we shall proceed to consider the matter on merits. As already mentioned, indisputably the complainant is a non-loanee farmer and had opted for insurance of his crop which he had sown after 31.07.2002, but before 15.08.2002. He had paid premium of Rs. Hence, it is clear that the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was competent. 11. Now we shall proceed to consider the matter on merits. As already mentioned, indisputably the complainant is a non-loanee farmer and had opted for insurance of his crop which he had sown after 31.07.2002, but before 15.08.2002. He had paid premium of Rs. 164.97 on 12.08.04, the receipt of which is filed on record. It would thus appear that the complainant though non-loanee farmer, opted for insurance of his crop under 'RKBY', 2002. The letter Dt. 09.04.03 of arc (respondent No.2) referred earlier in this order would indicate that the implementing agency respondent No.2, returned the declaration form and possibly the whole of the premium as has been stated by respondent NO.1, to the latter; on the ground that the Government of India had decided to give insurance coverage under the said 'RKBY' to the extent of threshold yield and not to the extent of 150% of the threshold yield as was provided under the original scheme. It may be noted in the above context that the relevant instructions or notification of Government of India limiting the insurance coverage to the extent of threshold yield only, have not been filed by the respondents. In any case, presuming such a notification was published and instructions were issued by the Government of India, still there was no justification for respondent NO.2 GIC, the implementing agency, to return the whole of premium, with declaration forms. They could comply with the aforementioned instructions of Government of India, by retaining proportionate premium i.e. to the extent of 2/3rd and treating the declaration form as modified, to the above extent, under intimation as above to nodal agency respondent No. 1, However, the GIC - respondent NO.2 has not chosen to do so. 12. So far as respondent No.1 nodal agency is concerned, they failed to comply with the directions of the implementing agency, as contained in their letter Dt. 09.04.03, i.e. they also failed to furnish fresh declaration form, according to the aforesaid instructions of Government of India. In fact letter Dt. 22.04.03 by nodal agency-respondent No.1, would indicate that they intimated the respondent NO.2- the implementing agency, that it is not possible to obtain fresh declaration forms, because there were several thousands of agriculturists. 09.04.03, i.e. they also failed to furnish fresh declaration form, according to the aforesaid instructions of Government of India. In fact letter Dt. 22.04.03 by nodal agency-respondent No.1, would indicate that they intimated the respondent NO.2- the implementing agency, that it is not possible to obtain fresh declaration forms, because there were several thousands of agriculturists. It appears that had the respondent No.1 nodal agency been alert and sincerely applied its mind to follow instructions as above of the Government of India and the implementing agency GIC, they could have easily submitted the revised declaration forms, by suitably modifying the declaration forms and also the amount of premium payable under the said amended instructions, by making simple calculations and working out the 2/3rd premium payable, without any difficulty. However, they also appear to have avoided their duty and obligation of doing so. 13. In the Circumstances, it is obvious that the respondents have been casual in the matter of implementing the modified instructions of Government of India, limiting the insurance coverage to the extent of threshold yield for crops sown between 1st to 15th August 2002. It appears that instead of following the instructions as above in their letter and spirit, they have tried to shift their responsibility on the shoulders of each other. This attitude of the respondents, no doubt is far from commendable and would certainly amount to deficiency in service. In any case, the complainant cannot be made to suffer on account of avoidance of responsibility as above, by the respondents - the nodal agency and the implementing agency me. 14. Now the question that requires consideration is as to what is the amount of compensation, which the complainant is entitled to get? 15. It may be reiterated that as per the modified instructions, the insurance cover was limited to the extent of price of threshold yield. The complainant/appellant indisputably had paid premium and covered his crop to the extent of 150%. Therefore, the premium payable as per the revised instructions, as well as the assured amount will have to be reduced by 1/3rd, and thus 2/3rd of the premium amount would be payable. Similarly the assured amount would also stand reduced, in the above proportion. It is also not in dispute that compensation has to be worked out on the basis of the formula mentioned in letter Dt. Similarly the assured amount would also stand reduced, in the above proportion. It is also not in dispute that compensation has to be worked out on the basis of the formula mentioned in letter Dt. 16.06.2003 of the nodal agency respondent No. 1; which is as below: assured amount x short fall in yield threshold yield 16. Applying the said formula as the short fall and threshold yield was, indisputably notified as 79 and 610 respectively, the compensation payable would be : 6285 x 79 610 = 813.95/- (rounded to Rs.814/-) 17. The complainant would accordingly be entitled to compensation of Rs.814/-. However, as he is also liable to pay proportionate premium thereon, which would be 2/3rd of the premium which calculates to Rs.110/-. The said amount of proportionate premium i.e. Rs. 110/- is liable to be adjusted from the above amount of compensation. Thus, the complainant/appellant would be entitled to get Rs. 704/- as compensation. 18. Therefore, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order dismissing the complaint is set aside. Respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant the above net compensation of Rs. 704/- with interest@ 9% per annum thereon, payable from 01.04.2003. The respondents shall also pay to the complainant the cost of this litigation, which is quantified at Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only. Appeal Allowed.