Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar – Hon’ble Member:

(1)                This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 01.10.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur in Consumer Complaint No.244/1999. 

(2)                Facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:

The complainant had applied for a loan under Prime Minister Employment Scheme for the provision of the lunch home.  The Bank had sanctioned a loan of `50,000/-.  The loan was to be disbursed in installments.  The Bank disbursed the first installment of `7,800/- on 17.09.1997.  It is the contention of the Complainant that from the first installment of loan amount she had paid the money to Khadvilkar Electricals for purchase of 12 chairs and 4 dining tables and submitted receipt to the Opponent Bank.  When the Complainant approached to the Opponent Bank for release of the next installment the Opponent Bank refused to release the second installment.  The Bank by letter dated 03.10.1997 had asked the Complainant that she had not purchased the chairs and tables and not started the business.  It is the contention of the Complainant that the business could not be started only on chairs and tables and it required money and as the Opponent Bank had not released the second installment she could not start the business.  She had complained to the District Industrial Centre, however, there was no any response.  Hence, she filed consumer complaint praying that the Opponent be directed to release the loan amount, to grant compensation of `56,000/- and costs of the complaint.

(3)                The Opponent Bank had resisted the complaint contending that the Complainant was not able to show that she had purchased the tables and chairs and she had misutilised the first installment of the loan and requested for dismissal of the complaint.

(4)                The District Forum after hearing both the parties and going through the evidence filed by the parties dismissed the complaint by order dated 01.10.2003.  It is against this order that the present appeal is filed.

(5)                The matter was unattended since 2003.  It was taken on board on 29^th July, 2011 and notices were issued to both the parties.  On the date of hearing both the parties remained absent. The matter being an old one we proceeded to decide the appeal on merit.

(6)                Admittedly, the Respondent bank had sanctioned a loan to the Appellant under Prime Minister Employment Scheme.  As per the guidelines of the scheme the loan is released in installments.  Accordingly, the Respondent Bank had released an amount of `7,800/- on 17.09.1997.  The amount was to be used for purchase of dining tables and chairs.  However, before releasing the second installment the Opponent Bank when inspected it was found that the Appellant had not utilized the loan amount for the purpose it was released.  The Complainant/Appellant misutilised the loan amount and hence, the Opponent Bank had not released the further installments. The District Forum after taking into consideration the evidence filed by both the Parties had dismissed the complaint.  The order passed by the District Forum is just and proper and we do not find any substance in the appeal filed by the Appellant.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

    (i)               Appeal is dismissed.

  (ii)               The order of the District Forum is hereby confirmed.

(iii)               Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced

Dated 27^th September, 2011.