ORDER As per Hon 'ble Shri V.K. Agarwal, President : 1. In this appeal, under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the order dated 22-8-05 in complaint No. 177/04 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Bilaspur (hereinafter called the 'District Forum' for short), has been challenged. 2. The complainant/ respondent No.1 herein indisputably holds 30.49 acres of agricultural land situate at village Bankee, Tahsil Mungeli. It is also not in dispute that the complainant respdt. No. 1 had insured his crop voluntarily under Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yoiana-2002 ('RKRY' for Short) and paid premium of Rs. 1990/- for insurance of his crop of 7.29 hectors of his land. The premium as above was paid by the complainant/respdt. No. 1 towards insurance of his crop for the agricultural year 2002. 3. The averments of the complainant were that he had sown kharrif crop in his land for the year 2002. The State Government declared that Tahsil Mungeli suffered from drought, in the year 2002. The complainant also alleged that his crop was completely ruined on account of inadequate rains. He further alleged that he contacted the appellant as well as respondent NO.2 for compensation under the insurance scheme RKBY; but since no compensation as above was paid to him, as requested by him, he preferred complaint before the District Forum. 4. The OP No. 1/respondent NO.2 is indisputably the Nodal Bank under 'RKBY'. It was averred by it that Rs.1990/- premium paid by Respdt. No. 1 was remitted by the said Nodal Bank to appellant/General insurance Corporation of India ('GIC' for short)- the implementing agency, along with the statement of agriculturists, required under RKBY. It was further averred by respdt. NO.2 that the present appellant-implementing agency however, returned the said statement with draft of premium to Respdt. NO.2. The same was sent back after rectification by respondent NO.2 and was received by the appellant on 29.9.2002. It was further averred that the said statement was against sent back to respondent No.2. for rectification of defects in the said statement. Thereafter the defects were rectified and the statement was again returned by respdt. NO.2 Nodal Bank to the appellant, which was received by the latter on 14.12.2002. It was averred by respondent No.2 that on account of hurdles created by the appellant implementing agency that the complainant could not get compensation. 5. Respondent NO.2 denied the allegations as above. Thereafter the defects were rectified and the statement was again returned by respdt. NO.2 Nodal Bank to the appellant, which was received by the latter on 14.12.2002. It was averred by respondent No.2 that on account of hurdles created by the appellant implementing agency that the complainant could not get compensation. 5. Respondent NO.2 denied the allegations as above. It was averred that the statement along with the consolidated premium amount should have been sent by the Nodal Bank! respdt. NO.2 to the appellant before the cut-off date. However, the statement as required under RKBY did not contain particulars and was not as per requirement of RKBY. As a result the statement sent by Respdt. No.2 was returned to it for rectification of detects. However, it was not corrected and sent back within the cut-off date. It was averred that since the corrected statement was not received within the cut-off date, the appellant was not liable to make the payment to the complainant under the scheme RKBY. 6. District Forum in the impugned order held that appellant/implementing agency was deficient in service and directed that Rs.20,000/- 7. As noticed earlier, indisputably RKBY for the year 2002 was in force and was made applicable to Tahsil Mungeli. It is also not disputed that complainant respondent No. 1 paid Rs. 1990/- towards premium to respondent NO.2/Nodal Agency. It would therefore, be clear that the crop sowed by the complainant was duly covered by RKJBY. From the averments made in the written version of respondent NO.2 itself, it would appear that consolidated premium and statement of agriculturists seat by it to the appellant/implementing agency was not in proper form. As a result the appellant returned the said statement to respondent NO.2 Bank. It is further clear from the averment of Respondent NO.2 Nodal Agency that corrected statement was ultimately sent and was received by the appellant as late as on 14.12.2002, while the cut-off date was 30.9.2002. Thus, it is clear from above, that the consolidated premium and statement were not sent by the Nodal Agency to the appellant within the cut-off date. 8. That being so, the appellant could not be held to be liable to pay compensation under the scheme. The Nodal Agency would therefore, be liable for payment of compensation, in view of the lapse on its part. 8. That being so, the appellant could not be held to be liable to pay compensation under the scheme. The Nodal Agency would therefore, be liable for payment of compensation, in view of the lapse on its part. It would therefore, appear from the finding of District Forum that appellant committed deficiency in service is not justified. Instead it is held that respondent NO.2 Nodal Agency was deficient in service and liable to pay compensation to the complainant/respondent No. 1. 9. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, indisputably the same is to be paid as per the following formula: Amount Assured x Short fall in the yield Threshold yield In this appeal, the complainant has submitted a statement which discloses that his land was unirrigated and that the insurance cover was for Rs. 24,284/-. From the statement furnished by the appellant, it would further appear that in the relevant year the threshold yield of unirrigated paddy crop was 592 Kg. per hec.; while actual yield was notified as 382 Kg. per hec. Thus the shortfall in the yield was 210 Kg. per hec. Applying the above formula in the present case, the compensation payable works out to: Rs. 24,284.00 x 210 592 = Rs. 8,614.25 (Rounded to Rs. 8,600/-). 10. Therefore, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order directing the appellant to nay compensation is set aside. Instead it is directed Respondent No 2- Nodal Bank would pay to the complainant/respondent No. 1 Rs. 8,600/- (Rupees eight thousand six hundred) as compensation. The above amount shall carry interest, at the rate of 9% p.a., payable from the date of complaint. Respondent NO.2/ Nodal Bank shall also pay to the complainant/respondent No. 1 cost of this litigation including that of the complaint as well as this appeal, which is quantified at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only. Appeal Allowed.