JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The petitioner who had a saving bank account with the respondent bank applied to the said bank through Madhya Pradesh Khadi and Gramoudyog Bhawan for sanction of a loan of Rs.10.00 lacs. A search fee of Rs.5,000/- was also deposited by him but the bank declined to sanction the loan. Being aggrieved, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking sanction of the loan and payment of compensation. 2. The complaint was resisted by the bank which inter-alia stated that whether to sanction to the loan or not was in the discretion of the bank and exercising the said discretion, the bank had declined to grant loan to the complainant. As regards, search fee, it was stated in the reply that the said fee was meant for the lawyer who carried out search of the property which was proposed to be mortgaged with the bank. It was also stated in the reply that as per the newspaper reports, a criminal case had been registered against the concerned several persons, including Mr. Sooraj Prakash Gupta, husband of the complainant and in view of the said news report, the Bank Manager had exercised his discretion not to sanction the loan. 3. The District Forum having dismissed the complaint, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, she is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition. 4. It is for the bank to decide, based upon the profile of the applicant and other relevant factors as to whether the loan should be sanctioned to him or not. A Consumer Forum cannot step into the shoes of the lender and examine the creditworthiness of otherwise of the loan-seeker. No direction can be given by a Consumer Forum to a bank to sanction loan to a person, seeking to avail such a facility. Therefore, the orders passed by the fora below do not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. As far as the search fee is concerned, as clarified in the reply filed by the bank before the District Forum, the same was meant for payment as professional charges to the lawyer who carried out the search in respect of the immovable property which was sought to be mortgaged with the bank. The bank is not expected to pay such a fee from its own pocket. The loan-seeker has to bear the cost of the search by an Advocate irrespective of whether the loan is sanctioned to him or not. 5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. | 
