Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.

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.      The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has availed loan from OP Nos. 1 and 2 in the year 2015 to develop his agriculture. In the same year, he applied for another loan under PMEGP scheme to promote his hotel business. D.I.C. rejected his application. Subsequently, on 11.2.2017 complainant applied for loan again and D.I.C. has sent it to OP No.1 on 3.3.2017 but OP Nos. 1 and 2 did not sanction the loan amount. Being aggrieved to such in action of OP Nos. 1 and 2, the complaint was filed.

4.      OP No.1 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable because the loan has been applied for commercial purpose.

5.      OP No.2 filed written version stating that the application was rejected as the inquiry report of the surveyor shows that the place is not viable for hotel business. OP No.3 did not file any written version.

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

                             “xxx  xxx  xxx

            Taking into consideration of the case of the complainant submission made by the OPs so also documents filed by the parties we allow the case of the complainant in part and direct the OP No.2 to release the PMEGP loan amount in favour of the complainant, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take steps against the OP for not carrying out the order. The case against OP No.1 and 3 are dismissed without cost. This case is disposed of accordingly.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version filed by the OPs with proper perspectives. According to him due to non-feasibility, the loan was not sanctioned. Learned District Forum ought to have considered that considering sanction  of loan requires many aspect and no service is attached unless the loan is sanctioned. Therefore, he submitted to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.

8.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

9.      It is the duty of the complainant to prove the negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

10.    It is admitted fact that the complainant has applied for the loan  but DIC has first rejected  and then applied for second loan through DIC  to OP Nos. 1 and 2 who after applying the method of assessment rejected the loan application. Once the procedure for sanction of loan has been observed and after due consideration, it has been rejected, hardly, there lies any deficiency of service on the part of OP Nos. 1 and 2. Learned District Forum has not kept in mind all these facts while assessing the facts. Therefore, this Commission do not agree with the finding of the learned District Forum. Hence, it is set aside and the appeal is allowed. No cost.

        DFR be sent back forthwith.

        Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon if any on proper identification.

        Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.