The parties are at logger heads over the question of disbursement of Loan in the sum of Rs.35,000/- which was sanctioned in favour of Kalika Choubey, Complainant/Petitioner, on the recommendation of District Industries Department under Educated, Unemployed Prime Minister Yojana for Self-Employment and for setting up of a furniture industry vide letter dated 14.2.1989. The State Bank of India, respondent was to disburse this amount. The bank gave a draft in the sum of Rs.928/- for purchase of iron tools and another draft in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to timber merchant, Mohania, for supply of wood. Thereafter, no further amount was given in spite of reminders. 2. The Branch Manager made a surprise inspection of the complainant’s shop. He found three chowkis (low-level seats) and door plank made of sub-standard wood. Consequently, the respondent, Bank stopped giving further loan. 3. The complaint was filed before the District Consumer Forum. The District Consumer Forum came to the conclusion that the bank had a discretion to decide whether the loan amount was used in the right manner or not, therefore, the Bank was justified and discontinued the loan and dismissed the complaint. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is neither inspection report nor the report of any expert. He contended that the petitioner is a poor person and his complaint may be accepted. 6. For the following reasons, we do not find ourselves amenable to these arguments. Letter dated 20.11.1990 issued by the State Bank of India is crucial and significant. It is in the form of a Notice. It mentions that on 08.10.1990, a Cash Memo was given to the Complainant. The wood was not purchased till 10th November, 1990. The complainant informed the Bank on 16th November, 1990 that he had purchased the wood and he invited the Bankers to inspect the same. On the same day, at about 5.00PM, the shop of the Complainant was inspected. It transpired that the petitioner had purchased jungle-wood (raw material). The petitioner had prepared three Chowkis and one wooden plank for a Door. He was asked to show-cause as to why he did not purchase the wood from 08.10.1990 to 16.11.1990. He was also required to explain that the wood available at the spot was not worth more than Rs.1,000/- and why the remaining wood in the sum of Rs.9,000/- was not yet purchased. It was confirmed that he had misused the debt and show-cause notice was given to him as to why the action should not be taken against him? 7. There is no response to this letter. No evidence in rebuttal was adduced. Nation cannot afford to burn money like this. This Notice, in itself, is an inspection report. The report of the expert was not required because the total wood purchased by him was worth Rs.1,000/- only, whereas the petitioner had taken loan of Rs.10,000/-. It casts a flim of doubt over the bonafides of the petitioner. Consequently, the complaint deserves no consideration. 8. It may also be mentioned that the above said Unemployed Prime Minister Yojana for Self-Employment does not exist nowadays. As such, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner. The Fora below nowhere missed the wood for the trees. We add our voice to theirs. The revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. | 
