Mr. Justice M.B. Shah, President—In these complaints the question involved for decision is limited, whereas the record is made bulky.

2. The decision in the matter has its bearing on a large number of poor farmers, i.e., more than a lakh who were the victims of a natural calamity-drought, in a drought-prone area. Despite the admitted fact that because of drought there was crop failure, the sum assured was not paid, the Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies and the nodal agencies accepted whatever the reduced assured sum paid by the G.I.C. Helpless poor indebted agriculturists could not raise their voice and approach the adjudicating authorities individually by filing separate complaints or suits for redressal of their grievances and for recovering small amounts varying from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 3,000/-. Their cause is taken up by the complainant, the Gujarat State Consumers’ Protection Centre (hereinafter called the ‘Protection Centre’). Unfortunately, taking up the cause by the ‘Protection Centre’ is objected by the respondents who are required to implement the benevolent provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3. The matter is about implementation of ‘Compre