1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that being an unemployed schedule tribe youth, after getting the approval from the District Task Force Committee (in short DTFC) of PMEGP in the year 2013-14 and recommendation on 26.09.2013 from the O.P. No. 2, he applied for loan of Rs. 5,50,000/- to the O.P.No.1 for setting up an Atta Chaki and Rice Mill.  It is alleged that inspite of several approaches to the O.P.No.1, the loan amount was not granted in his favour and on approach to O.P.No.2, he was advised to apply fresh loan under PMEGP in the year 2014-15 and have taken different training at different places.  It is also alleged that since no action was taken by O.P.No.1 to sanction the loan, he approached the O.P.No.2, but yielded no result.  Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.P.No.1 to sanction loan of Rs. 5,50,000/- and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 5,000/ towards costs of litigation expenses to him.
    
2. The O.P.No.1 appeared in the case and filed their counter admitting apply of application for sanction of PMEGP Loan by the Complainant, but strictly denied the allegations of the Complainant contending that the Complainant had not gone through the mandatory EDP training and he submitted the certificate of vegetable cultivation training under agriculture but applied for setting up floor mill.  Further they have contended that since the Complainant failed to show the source of the margin money required for establishing the unit, so considering the feasibility and viability of the loan, they have returned the application of the Complainant during November, 2014 and with other contentions, showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against him.
    
3. On the other hand, O.P.No.2 appeared in the case and filed their counter admitting apply of application for PMEGP loan by the complainant, but denied the allegations contending that as per recommendation of DTFC, they have forwarded the application to the SBI on 26.09.2013 and the joint inspection was made by both Bank and their staff.  Further they have contended that though the complainant had undergone different training programs but the sanction of loan and credit decision was upto to the bank authority.  Further they have contended that the complainant was again applied for application to them and as per recommendations of DTFC, they have forwarded the approval order to SBI on 15.09.2014, as such showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
4. Complainant has filed certain documents in support of his allegations whereas the O.Ps did not choose to file any documents.  However, the A/R on behalf of O.P. No.1 filed certain verdicts of the Higher Forums.  Perused the case records and material documents available therein.
    
5. In the instant case, facts and circumstances are admitted from both parties.  During the hearing, the Ld. Counsel for O.P. No. 1 raised voice regarding the fact that the complainant is not consumer as per the Act, as such the present case is not maintainable.  He has also argued that since there is no monetary consideration exist between the parties nor any type of service was rendered to the complainant, as such complainant is not a consumer under them as per the provision of the Act.  Before going to the merit of the case, we decided to discuss about the point raised by the A/R on behalf of the O.P. No. 1.
    
6. We have carefully gone through the documents available in the record and ascertained that though the complainant filed certain documents in support of his submissions but have not filed any single document to prove the fact that he has paid any amount to avail any service from the O.Ps.  Further it is ascertained that all the documents filed by the complainant only proves that he has applied for PMEGP loan with the O.P. No. 1 after getting approval from the DTFC and the O.P. No. 2, and it is also ascertained from the submissions of the complainant that he paid nothing towards the training received by him which was provided by the O.P. – bank on different times.  Since there is no consideration is exist nor any service rendered by the O.Ps to the complainant, as such he is not a consumer as per the provisions of the Act.
    
7. Further it is generally seen that Govt. has adopted many schemes and programs for all round development of the poor unemployed youth and from time to time so many schemes have been introduced like PMEGP and others, with an intentions to develop the economic strategy of the poor persons as well as of the society.  Though many people do not have either proper documentation or any eligibility for creditworthy, still they are in stand queue for availing the loan to set up their life smoothly.  No doubt, it is upto the bank’s decision to grant a loan on the basis of the viability and potentiality of the concerned area of the customers, but it cannot be denied that loan cannot be granted to the customer if there is a little chance of recovery.  Hence keeping in view of the aim and objectives of the schemes and programs adopted by the State Govt. as well as the Central Govt. for the all round upliftment of the poor unemployed youth, we think they should get a chance.  However, considering the submissions of the O.Ps, we think, in the present case in hand, the O.P. – bank should extent their cooperative hand to the poor unemployed youth i.e. the complainant, if viability and potentiality of the his area is possible and suit for granting of loan, if he applied for further loan.  Hence this order.

ORDER

Considering the above discussions, the complaint petition is dismissed on the point that complainant is not a consumer.  Parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 10^th day of October, 2018.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.