Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.   The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that complainant being a non-loanee farmer deposited premium of Rs.1,096.46 on 13.8.2008 and the same amount was deducted from the SB account of the complainant by OP No.1 for covering the risk of damage to the Kharif crop of complainant in 2008. Complainant alleged inter alia that the State Government had declared 54.7908% crop damage in Jharbandh Block for Kharif  crop in 2008 season. Since there is damage to the crop, complainant lodged insurance claim but OP No.1 did not deposit the compensation amount with OP No.2 for disbursement. Since the complainant enquired about the same, he found that the money has not been sent to the insurance company and for that the complainant sustained financial loss in raising the crop and as such also suffered from mental agony and harassment. So the complaint was filed.

4.      OP No.1 filed written version submitting that the complainant had not insured his crop with OP No.1 Bank as a loanee or non-loanee farmer. Complainant has never got any crop loan or he had opened any account as non-loanee farmer. The plea has also been taken that the village of the complainant does not come within the service area of OP No.1. It is averred in the written version that the complainant has deposited premium amount with OP No.1 Bank and the same has been debited from his account but OP No.1 asked to file the declaration form duly attested by the Government officials so as to send the same to OP No.2 for taking necessary action. Complainant remained silent on the letter and as such after waiting for a long period, OP No.1 returned the premium amount to the complainant and as such, OP No.1 has no deficiency of service on their part and complainant is not entitled to any relief as asked for. They specifically submitted that clause – 23 of the scheme has not been fulfilled by the complainant.  So there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1.

5.      OP No.2 filed written version stating that it is a Company implementing the Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojana (in short RKBY) on behalf of the Central Government and the State Government.  They have been given the task of covering  Kharif crop of 2008. In fact, they have got duty under the Scheme only to receive the premium from OP No.1 duly deposited by the loanee and non-loanee farmers. Under the Scheme, they have got duty to disburse the amount to the concerned financing institution i.e. Nodal Bank - OP No.1 who in turn would pay the necessary amount to the respective loanee and non-loanee farmers as the case may be who have  deposited premiums with OP No.1. They have got  manner of calculation of insurance amount. With regard to the particular case, they averred that through the Nodal Bank - OP No.1 vide letter of the Government of Indi