Heard learned counsel for the appellant at the stage of order after notice. After going through the impugned order, there is no necessity to call for the DFR.

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

3.        The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has applied for financial assistance under Prime Minister Rojgar Yojana for the year 2002-03 for his livelihood. It is alleged inter alia that the O.Ps did not sanction the loan with ulterior motive. Thereafter,the complainant served notice on  O.P. No.1 to disburse the loan amount as approved by  O.P.no.2.Since loan was not  disbursed, he filed the complaint case.

4.        O.P.no.1 filed written version stating therein that the complainant was selected provisionally by the District Task Force Committee,Bhadrak for sanction of loan but he was not eligible at their level.Further the O.P. submitted that the complainant comes under the higher income group and not supplied any materials for the purpose of sanctioning loan.So, the loan was not disbursed. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  O.P No.1.

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

“xxx                  xxx                   xxx

In view of our above observation, the O.P.no.1 is directed to make payment of the loan amount to the complainant.Keeping the fixed deposit prescribed under the P.M.R.Y loan within a month of receipt of this order, failing whichcompensation for Rs.10,000/- will be payable by the O.P.no.1.

Thus the case is allowed as per this order.”

6.        Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant is higher income group and has not supplied any materials for the purpose of  sanctioning loan.He has no criteria to avail the loan and thereby OP rejected the loan proposal and has not considered the loan.As such the impugned order should be  set aside by allowing the appeal.

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

8.        It is admitted fact that the complainant has applied for financial assistance under the Prime Minister Rozgar Yojana scheme  for the year,2002-2003 duly selected by the District Task Force Committee,Bhadrak for sanction of loan. But it has not been sanctioned by OP – Bank as it  does not  meet their request. It is stated by this Commission in several occasionsthat non sanction of loan amount  does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act,1986. When the reason for not granting the loan is clear, there was no  deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.Therefore, the impugned order is liable to set aside and is set aside.

9.        The  appeal stands allowed. No cost.

           DFR be sent back forthwith.

         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.