For the Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent-1For the Respondent-2 : Mr. Mehar Singh, AdvocateMr. Vishnu Mehra, AdvocateMr. Gangadethan, Advocate 8th DEC. 2009 O R D E R Petitioners were the opposite party no. 1 & 3 before the District Forum, where the first respondent / complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent / complainant had obtained a loan from the second respondent Bank for setting-up an industrial unit under Rural Employment Guarantee Programme, floated by Government of India. This loan application had been submitted through Rajasthan Khadi Gramadyog Board and District Industry Centre, Churu, Rajasthan. The loan was sanctioned but when the respondent / complainant approached the Bank for adjustment of subsidy under the Scheme and when this was not forthcoming and the complainant was not getting the benefit of margin money / subsidy, under the Scheme, a complaint was filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner and respondent no. 2. The matter was contested by the opposite parties before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties and keeping in view the provision of Scheme allowed the complaint qua the Bank, in following terms:- “The complaint of the complainant is accepted against non-applicant no. 2 SBBJ, Branch Sahwa, Tehsil Tara Nagar, through its Branch Manager and it is ordered that an amount of Rs.45,000/- margin money should be deposited in the account of applicant and while treating this amount to be deposited on 14.6.2004. If any interest is imposed upon this amount then the same should be deposited in the account of the applicant. The applicant is also entitle to receive Rs.2,000/- as compensation and the complaint expenses from non-applicant no. 2 and this amount should also be deposited in the account of the applicant. This order should be complied with by the Bank within 2 months from today. Against the non-applicant No.1 & 3 the complaint is rejected. Non-applicant No.2 is free to receive this amount from non-applicant No. 1 & 3 by taking action under the provisions of law.” Aggrieved by this order, the respondent no. 2 filed an appeal before the State Commission, which allowed the appeal by modifying the order passed by District Forum and directed the petitioners to pay this amount, in following terms:- “1. The non-applicant No. 1 & 3 are ordered to deposit an amount of Rs.45,000/- of margin money in the account of complainant lying with the Bank non-applicant No.2. 2. The interest of Rs.45,000/- for the period from 14.6.2004 to 20.09.2006 charged by the Bank from the complainant, the same should be deposited by the Bank in the account of the complainant and from 20.09.2006 till deposition of Rs.45,000/- the amount of interest shall be deposited by the non-applicant No.1 & 3 in the account of the complainant. 3. The non-applicant No. 1 & 3 should pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as complaint expenses to the complainant.” Aggrieved by this order, this revision petition has been filed before us. We heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. There is no disputing the fact that the complainant had applied for loan from the petitioners to the second respondent Bank, i.e., State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. Loan was sanctioned. It is also not in dispute that as per ‘Rural Employment Guarantee Programme’, a copy of which is on record, the applicant, i.e., complainant was entitled to benefit of margin money subsidy of Rs.45,000/-. As per the Scheme on record, the “Margin Money Claim”, application was to be submitted by the financing branch of the Bank to the designated nodal branch which in this case was the petitioners, within 3 months from the date of disbursing of first instalment, which admittedly has not happened in this case, i.e., the Bank did not approach Petitioners for release of margin money / subsidy with the stipulated period of 3 months, in view of which holding the petitioner responsible for deficiency as held by the State Commission, cannot be sustained. The deficiency, if any, was on the part of the respondent no. 2 Bank, which did not submit the claim for Margin money within stipulated period of 3 months, in view of which we find that second respondent Bank did not act according to the provisions of the Scheme, for which he cannot be rewarded or let off. The fault, if any, lay with the Bank and not with the petitioner, in view of which, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the State Commission, which is set aside and the order passed by the District Forum holding the respondent no. 2 Bank, responsible is restored, leaving liberty with the Bank to approach the petitioner for reimbursement, if permitted, under the terms of the Scheme. The revision petition stands allowed in above terms.