Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

    2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                  The factual matrix leading to the case  of the complainant is that  the complainant had applied for the loan under PMRY Scheme  for purchase of power tiller   for its use in agricultural operation. The grievance of the complainant is that the complainant and other villagers applied under PMRY scheme to avail the loan amount from OP No.1 being recommended by OP No.2 but on 16.03.2006 he came to know that he has  not been sanctioned  to avail the loan whereas other villagers were recommended to avail loan. So, the complaint was filed.

4.            The OP  did  neither  appeared nor  contested the case inspite of due service of notice and as such set-ex-parte.  

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

              Xxx       xxxx                   xxxx                   xxxx

                            “That, the complaint petition is allowed on ex-parte against the Opposite Parties without cost. The opp.party No.1-Bank is directed to advance loan to the complainant under PMRY scheme as applied by her treating  her as a beneficiary for the financial year 2005-06 within three months from the date of the order and if it is not possible to treat her as beneficiary for the said financial year which is already over  than the complainant be treated as beneficiary for the financial year 2006-07 and loan be advanced to her under PMRY scheme within three months from the date of the order.”

6.                  Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that   learned District Forum has committed error in law by not giving opportunity to the OP No.1 to place their case. According to him they have not sanctioned the loan in favour of the complainant because the complainant has no feasibility to avail the loan. Had there been opportunity  to participate, they would have   submitted the said fact before the learned District Forum. He further submitted that this Commission has passed order in several cases that  sanction of loan depends  upon the feasibility of the concerned applicant and the sanction of loan can not be taken as matter of complainant’s right. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

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

8.                       The only question arises in this case whether the complainant proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. No doubt the impugned order passed ex-parte. It appears that on 16.05.2006 the OP No.1 & 2  are set ex-parte. But it is  not clear whether the service of summon is sufficient. However, thereafter the OP No.1  appeared but the petition to set-aside the ex-parte order is rejected on 23.06.2006.  The parawise  comment available on record filed by OP No.2 shows that  they have recommended for availing loan from OP No.1.

9.            Ext.2 show that the complainant was also recommended by  the OP No.2  for  sanction of  loan in favour of the complainant of course subject to  compliance of other official formalities as directed by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant also states that  since the appellant has not complied the formalities to satisfy the feasibility to avail  the loan, same  has not been sanctioned. Of course impugned order shows that there was C.D. No.120/2004 filed on same ground but OP No.1 promised to grant loan in 2005-06 and learned District Forum game emphasis on it. The feasibility of availing loan depending on the particular year in which it is considered. So said promise can not be ground for non sanction of loan in 2005-06.  It  is also  well settled in law that a consumer can not demand  for sanction of loan beyond  terms  and conditions of the sanction of loan made by the OP No.1. Since, in the instant case  the feasibility to avail loan has  not been proved  by the complainant, the loan has not been sanctioned as per submission of the learned counsel of the appellant.

9.                 In view of fact that  sanction of loan depends on performance of the appellant, we do not find any reason to allow the complaint when complainant has not proved his feasibility to avail loan.  On the otherhand, learned District Forum has not considered all these facts and law but  passed the impugned  order which is not sustainable in  law.

                      Thus, appeal stands allowed. 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.      

                          Statutory amount be refunded.