F.A.144 OF 2008 with

                                              F.A. 175 OF 2008

                      Heard learned counsel for both the sides.

2.              These appeals are  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to these appeals shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.  Both the appeals arise out  of order passed in C.D.149/2006. Therefore the judgment will cover by both the parties. The F.A.144/2008   is filed by the OP whereas F.A.175/2008 is filed by the complainant.

3.                      The case     of the complainant, in nutshell  is that the complainant  under the PMRY scheme  during the year 2006-07  with the recommendation of the DIC has  applied to the OP No.1 for loan.  It is alleged inter-alia that OP No.1 after field visit did not disburse the loan amount   for which  he  got mental agony  and harassment. Hence, the complaint was filed.

4.            The  OP    filed written version stating that  the complainant is not a consumer.  It is averred that the complainant did not file any documents in support of his age and educational qualification. They  also stated that no documents have been filed by the complainant   for disbursement of the loan in question.  Therefore,   there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

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

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                              “ In  view  of the above fact and circumstances, having perused the  guideline of the Directorate Industry,Orissa,documents and pleadings  of the parties, we are persuaded to believe that the Op No.1 committed deficiency of service by not returning the  application of the complainant recording the sufficient reasons of the rejection to the Op No.2. Thus, there is justification to hold that the complainant having undergone mental agony for the negligence of the Op  No.1 is liable to get compensation of Rs.8,000/- towards mental agony alongwith cost of litigation charge Rs.500/- from the OP No.1. On his failing to pay the above amounts within one month from the date of receipt of the order the complainant may recover the same  from him through the Court.”

                  Accordingly the case is disposed of.”

6.               Learned counsel for the appellant in F.A.144/2008 submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version with proper perspectives.  According to him, after filing of application, they have to scrutinize the documents but  the complainant did not submit same. Mere recommendation of the DIC  is not enough to disburse the loan. Moreover, he submitted that disbursement of the loan can not be  directed by the learned District Forum as per the settled principle of law. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.               Learned counsel for the Appellant in F.A.175/2008 submitted that they have filed the appeal challenging the order    for enhancing the amount of compensation.

8.                      Considered the submission  of learned counsel for the parties, perused the DFR and impugned order.       

9.                 It is  admitted fact that the complainant has applied for the loan under the PMRY scheme duly recommended  by DIC. The OP No.1 who is the appellant in F.A.144/2008 has admitted to have received the application  and filed scrutiny verification report and further orders. They  find that the complainant is not eligible to disburse the loan. When the OP No.1 is the banker and they have scrutinized  as per the banking norms, the learned District Forum can not sit as appellate  authority   to  direct to disburse the loan. It is settled in law that as long as  sanction of loan is not ordered,  the question of availing service or buying service  does not arise.

             Therefore, there is no cause of action arise so far. Learned District Forum  without considering all these aspects passed  the order which is liable to be set-aside and it is set-aside. Consequently, F.A. 144/2008  is allowed and F.A.175/2008 is dismissed. No cost.

                   Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

                     DFR be sent back forthwith.