This matter has already been heard previously. None appears today. However, we are inclined to dispose of the matter basing on the materials available on record.

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 District Forum.

3.   It appears from the pleading of both parties that the complainant has deposited Rs.600/- as insurance premium on 30.7.2002 for his Ac.10.00 of land with OP No.1 in his Pass Book No. 3305. Complainant alleged that the OPs only deducted Rs. 195/- towards insurance premium for Ac 4.00 of land instead of Ac.10.00, as such, complainant alleging about deficiency in service on the part of the OPs filed the consumer complaint.

4.      OP Nos. 1 and 2 averred that they have received Rs.600/- for the land of 1.6 hectors which is equivalent to Ac.4.00 of land as per rule. Although they averred that, they have accepted Rs.195/- as per rule. There is no illegality committed by them. OP No.3 also supported OP Nos. 1and 2.

5.      After hearing both parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            OPs 1 and 2 are directed to pay the differential percentage of crop loss as declared by the Govt. over Ac.10.00 of land by deducting the amount already paid, to the complainant along with interest @9% PA since the date of payment of less amount, till payment with cost of Rs.300/-.”

6.      It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned District Forum has passed impugned order without considering the written version filed by the OPs. According to him acceptance of only Rs.195/- was as per the principle available to the small farmers and the complainant being a small farmer was only to pay Rs.195/- for Ac.4.00 of land but not Rs.600/-. So, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.      Considered the submissions and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

8.      It is admitted fact that the complainant has deposited Rs.600/- as premium for insurance coverage of his Ac.10.00 of land. It is not in dispute that OP Nos. 1 and 2 only received premium for Ac.4.00 of land alleging that complainant is a small farmer. It is clearly observed by the learned District Forum at Para - 5 of the impugned order in the following manner:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            The complainant is not clear to which extent he has received the insurance amount from the OPs. He only stated in his petition that he has deposited the premium amount of Rs.600/- with OP 1 as per the papers prepared by the officials of the Govt. administration and accordingly to their instruction the amount was deposited with the OPs. Therefore, accepting the statement of the complainant, he is entitled to get the insurance amount on the premium deposit of Rs.600/- and not on Rs.195/-, which the OPs have given.”

9.      It is clearly revealed from the aforesaid observation that the complainant has not proved his case how much insurance amount he is entitled to get. When the complainant has not proved the deficiency in