IMPORTANT POINT
Once the loan has been sanctioned by any financial authority, more so, by a public body, then the loanee will come within the definition of ‘consumer’ and they can refuse to disburse further loan only when the terms and conditions of the sanctioned letter are not complied with.

B.K. Taimni, Member—Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

2. Undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent/ complainant applied for a loan to the Secretary, Orissa Khadi and Village Industries, to the tune of Rs.10,00,000 which was sanctioned but out of this only Rs.6,50,000 was disbursed. The remaining amount was not disbursed, as according to the petitioner, work relating to construction of shop and purchase of machinery was not as per terms of sanction letter. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, where the District Forum by a majority judgment dismissed the complaint. On an appeal filed by the respondent/complainant before the State Commission, it was allowed and upheld the minority judgment of the District Forum passed by the President of the District Forum. Aggrieved by this order, revision petition has been filed before us.

3. Mr. Nikilesh R., and Mr. S. Kumar, Advocate have been appearing from time to time on behalf of the respondents but despite knowledge of today’s date no one is present on behalf of the respondent. This is an old case, hence we are not inclined to further delay the matter. The case is proceeded ex parte against the respondent.

4. We heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. We have very carefully gone through the order passed by the State Commission. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we wish to make it clear that once the loan has been sanctioned by any financial authority, more so, by a public body, then the loanee will come within the definition of consumer and they can refuse to disburse further loan only when the terms and conditions of the sanctioned letter are not complied with. It was the case of the petitioner that since the respondent/complainant was not adhering to the terms of the sanction letter for release of fund, they could not be compelled to raise the amount but there is no material on record before, us to support our contention. As per the schemes of things, the loan was to be disbursed through Dhenkanal Gramya Bank. As we see they are a necessary party but they were not made a party, in view of which, it was the responsibility of the Gramya Bank to carry out the inspection from time to time before release of further instalments. There is no material on record on behalf the Gramya Bank as to what did they find at the time of their visit, in view of which this Commission shall not be able to take a view one way or the other on the point of deficiency in service as no material has been produced by the petitioner or the respondent to the effect as to what was the report of the Gramya Bank with regard to the utilisation of the amount released in terms of the loan sanction letter.

5. In the aforementioned circumstances, we are constrained to remand the case back to the State Commission with a direction that Dhenkanal Gramya Bank be made a party and be directed to file their written version as well as the evidence by way of affidavit on which the petitioner/respondent could also file reply, counter/rejoinder and only then pass the order on merit. Since this is an old case, the State Commission is requested to dispose of the case within a period of 4 months from the first date of hearing.

6. The revision petition stands disposed of in above terms.

Revision disposed of.

*******