Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
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 case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant applied for a loan under PMRY scheme in the year 2004-05 for setting up a book stall and completed all formalities including submission of Income certificate of Rs.16,000.00 from the Tahasildar and all other documents which are required for PMRY scheme. It is alleged that though the complainant was selected to avail the PMRY loan but the appellant-OP No.1 did not allow to avail PMRY loan. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP N.1, the complaint was filed.
4. The OP No.1 filed the written version stating that under the PMRY Scheme, the loan in question was neither considered nor sanctioned by OP No.1 on the ground that the annual income including his father’s pension exceeds more than Rs.40,000/- and the complainant is not eligible for the loan amount. Therefore, they have rejected the loan application. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1.
5. Learned Addl. Govt. Pleader on behalf of OP No.2 filed written version stating that as per Govt. of India guidelines the list of selected beneficiaries has been sent to Bank for finance and accordingly subsidy amount from the govt. side has been released in favour of the beneficiaries. It is also averred that the grievance of the complainant has been sent to the Indian Bank for which there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2.
6. OP No.3 filed the written version stating that the complainant was selected by Task force as beneficiary under PMRY Scheme and his loan application has been provisionally sanctioned by OP No.1 which was recommended by OP No.3 on 30.03.2005. According to him the complainant was asked to undergo training dtd.08.04.2005 but the complainant did not attend the training programme from 19.04.2005 to 21.04.2005 which is required for disbursement of the loan. Since, the complainant was not eligible to avail the loan, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3.
.7. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
“ In the net result the dispute is disposed of with the following directions.
- The OP No.1 (Branch Manager,Indian Bank,Ankula) will take immediate stable steps to disburse the PMRY loan of the complainant during the current year 2006-07 after completing all formalities provided under PMRY Scheme.
- The above PMRY loan shall be disbursed prior to March,2007 without inviting a fresh application from the complainant but on the basis of the loan application and annual income certificate submitted by the complainant in the year 2004-2005.
- As regards compensation though we do not saddle with any compensation to OP No.1 but to meet the ends of justice we allow Rs.1,000/- ( one thousand) as litigation charge be paid by OP No.1 to the complainant prior to March,2007. In case of any deviation of our above directions by Op No.1, the complainant is at liberty to take shelter of this For a for further action at this level.”
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version filed by the Ops with proper perspectives. According to him complainant’s name although was recommended by the DIC but the financing stability was considered by the OP No.1 and as such found that his case is not viable for disbursement of the loan. Apart from this he submitted that OP No.3 has filed the written version and the complainant has not undertaken any training which is required for disbursement of the loan. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all the facts and law involved in this case. Moreover, he submitted that the criteria for sanction of loan is not coming under the purview of the Consumer Commission to compel the financing authority to sanction the loan. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
9. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
10. It is admitted fact that the complainant has applied for loan under PMRY Scheme. It is admitted fact that the DIC has to sponsored the name of the complainant for availing the loan. However, the dispute arises became the present OP No.1 has not sanctioned loan because of non-eligibility of complainant. It is well settled in law that as long as loan has not been sanctioned or any deposit is made to get loan, the question of hiring of service under the Act does not arise. Since, one of the ingredient of availing service is payment of consideration, the case is not under the purview of the Act in absence of payment of consideration or promise to pay consideration. Thus, complainant can not be said to be a consumer U/S-2(d)of the Act. Apart from this it is settled in law that Consumer Court is not competent to pass order for sanction of loan as no right accrued as consumer to file complaint.
11. In the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that learned District Forum has exercised their power beyond jurisdiction by directing OP to allow the complainant for sanction of loan. In such circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside and it is set-aside.
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.
