O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> Perused the complaint and documents filed with the complaint. Heard the learned counsel.<br /> As per the complainant the Respondent KSFC had sanctioned a loan of Rs. 18,00,000/- out of which Rs. 13,05,000/- for building and Rs. 4,95,000/- was for machinery. The loan for building was released stage-wise according to the progress of the construction work and released a total sum of Rs. 12,68,659/- as on 23-01-02. It is also the case of the complainant that after completion of building the Respondent KSFC did not release the second part of loan for purchase of machinery. As specifically averred in Paras 7 to 9 in the complaint, the Respondent KSFC did not release the second part of loan for machinery so he was compelled to obtain loan from private financiers and installed machinery.<br /> <br /> But the complainant has not whispered a single word that he had made demands for release of second part of loan for purchase of machinery which was already sanctioned by the Respondents. Even there is absolutely no record or any scrap of paper to show that he had wranged the bell asking the Respondent for release of second part of loan for purchase of machinery. So in the absence of any material particulars we are at a loss to know as to why the complainant slept over the matter for not having knocked the door of the corporation KSFC for release of the second part of loan for machinery. Under these circumstances there is absolutely no cause of action for the complainant to embark upon the Respondent Corporation KSFC to find fault with them for not releasing the second part of the loan already sanctioned. <br /> It may be that the complainant might have obtained the loan from private financier and installed the machinery but the point involved in this case is as to why the complainant kept mum without demanding for the release of second part of loan. Even he has not furnished any piece of evidence in that regard. Had the complainant furnished any piece of evidence regarding demand made by him for release of this machinery loan on the completion of building to show the utilization of loan for building and requirement for instillation of machinery then there could have been a strong prima-facie case for deficiency of service by the Respondent in not releasing the second part of sanctioned loan. Under these circumstances we are unable to see a prima-facie case in favour of the complainant for deficiency of service by the Respondent Corporation. Therefore the complaint deserves to be rejected. In the result we pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaint of the complainant being devoid of merits in showing prima-facie case for allowing his complaint to be proceeded with. So the complaint is rejected U/s. 12 (3) of the C.P. Act. No order as to cost.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. N.H. Savalagi<br /> President<br /> Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri.Pampannagouda <br /> Member.<br /> Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Smt.Kavita Patil <br /> Member.<br /> Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br />