Presented by Sri B.K.Pati, Member.<br /> The present complaint pertains to deficiency of service as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act and its brief history is as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant, an Account Holder under the Opposite Party No.1(one) vide Saving Bank Account No. 011280413776, requested the Opposite Party No.1(one) for a loan to improve his Caste profession of weaving, the same being his only source of earing livelihood. A Kuli by caste the Complainant wanted to set-up his caste business of Batik works through Margin Money Assistance Scheme of O.K. & V.I. Board. The Opposite Party No.2(two) approved the loan application of the Complainant and forwarded the same to the Opposite Party No.1(one) for sanctioning of a loan amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lac)only with a subsidy of Rs.60,000/-(Rupees sixty thousand)only under Margin Money Assistance Scheme of the O.K. & V.I. Board intimating the Complainant vide memo No. 1515 Dt.11/05/2005. Basing on the documents such as No Dues Certificate issued by Banks and Encumbrance Certificate of the Complainant's property, the Lawyer of Opposite Party No.1(one) opined the father of the Complainant to stand as a guarantor for his son for availing of the loan. The Opposite Party No.1(one) obtained signature of the Complainant in an agreement for the purpose. The Opposite Party No.1(one) returned all documents to the Complainant on Dt.15/12/2005 without sanctioning the loan assigning reasons which are falls and concocted. When Opposite Party No.1(one) and his higher authority the A.G.M., State Bank of India, Sambalpur did not pay any heed to the Complainant's request to sanction the loan he brought the matter to the Opposite Party No.3(three) vide No.2550 Dt.19/04/2006. The Opposite Party No.3(three) gave the finding on Dt.01/06/2006 that the village of the Complainant is not coming with the service area of the Opposite Party No.1(one). As a result of non sanctioning of loan, the Complainant became mentally depressed and suffered loss in his business.<br /> <br /> The Complainant prays for directing the Opposite Party No.1(one) to sanction the loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lac)only under the Margin Money Assistance Scheme, O.K.& V.I Board rural employment generation programme approved by the Opposite Party No.2(two). Further, the Complainant claims from the Opposite Parties Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lac)only towards harassment and mental agony, Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lac)only toward loss of business for two years, Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for documentation charges and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards litigation expenses with 9%(nine percent)interest per annum for such loss.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) in its version denies the Complainant to be its consumer as per the provision of the Consumer Protection Act -1986. It says that, the loan application of the Complainant received from the Opposite Party No.2(two) was sent back to the said Opposite Party with the remark that the project was not financially feasible, the village, Satalma does not fall under the service area of the Opposite Party No.1(one) and the applicant has no working experience in the applied activities, besides some other ground and the Opposite Party No.2(two) remained silent in the matter after receiving the said letter of the Opposite Party No.1(one) the Opposite Party No.1(one) further contends that sanctioning loan is purely a discretion of the Bank taking into account the credit-worthiness, technical feasibility, ability to pay the loan, integrity of the applicant and such other matters. The Regional Manager, IBO, Bolangir as well as the Opposite Party No.3(three) have turned down the request and appeal of the Complainant to reconsider his loan application. The Opposite Party No.1(one) denies that it has committed any deficiency of service against the Complainant and prays for dismissal of the Complaint with cost for filing this frivolous case against it.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.2(two) in its version says that there is no cause of action or nor any allegation against this Opposite Party and the complaint is not maintainable against it. It admits that it had recommended for sanction of loan under O.K & V.I. Board for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lac)only in favour of the Complainant to set up Batik works. The loan application of Complainant was returned by the Opposite Party No.1(one) as it was not found feasible.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.3(three) in its version contend that the Complainant is no way a consumer of this Opposite Party under any of the provisions contained in the Consumer Protection Act-1986, either as a service provider, Banking, Financing nor it is a party to any transaction between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.1(one). It is also not a necessary or proper party in connection with the present complaint. It being only and adjudicating authority under the Banking Regulation Act for the said reason including those cited here-to-before, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the Opposite Party with exemplary cost.<br /> <br /> Perused the Complaint, version of the Opposite Parties and the copies of the documents filed by the Parties in support of their respective cases and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) denied the Complainant to be its consumer. The Complainant not only has a Saving Bank Account in the Opposite Party Bank but according to Section 2 (D) (II), consumer includes (1) who hires or avails of “the services for consideration paid or promised”. In the case of a prospective consumer “the promise” to pay consideration when the service availed of is implicitly present. For example, when loan is sanctioned by Bank the loanee pays interest over the loan amount that is in shape of “Promise” while seeking loan. On both the counts mentioned her-to-before, the Complainant is found to be a consumer of Opposite Party No.1(one).<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) alleges that, the Opposite Party No.2(two) on return of the loan application of the Complainant without sanctioning the same, kept silent in the matter. Since the Opposite Party No.2(two) had already recommended the loan to be sanctioned in favour of the Complainant, it had completed its part of the duty and keeping silent after the loan application was returned to it by the Opposite Party No.1(one), can't be a ground affecting the fate of the loan application of the Complainant. <br /> <br /> From amongst the grounds of rejection of the loan application of the Complainant two points appear to be vital and purely the discretion of the Opposite Party No.1(one) to judge. One, that the project is not financially feasible and two, that integrity of the applicant is found to be doubtful. The institution financing a loan has its won way of judging as to on what grounds a loan is to be advanced or not. The Complainant has not been able to refute the aforesaid position taken by the Opposite Party No.1(one) while rejecting the loan application. No wonder, the Complainant has not been able to prove and establish any deficiency of service committed by the Opposite Parties against him.<br /> <br /> Complaint disallowed. <br /> No cost. <br />