K.SAMPATH, J. - (1.) The complainant in OP No.36/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chengalpattu, is the appellant herein. His grievance was that the 3rd opposite party had been deficient in service in not sanctioning the loan though the loan had been approved by the opposite parties 1 and 2 and they had also agreed to pay subsidy to the 3rd opposite party bank. The facts are as under :- The complainant had applied for a loan of Rs.50,000/- for running a tea shop under TAHDCO scheme. The 1st opposite party had forwarded the application of the complainant to the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party had refused to sanction the loan. According to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties, they had found the complainant eligible and the scheme viable. A subsidy of Rs.50,000/- was released. The 3rd opposite party was requested to withdraw the subsidy while disbursing the loan to the individual. The case of the 3rd opposite party was that before sanctioning the loan they inspected the premises mentioned by the complainant and found a stranger carrying on the tea shop business and the complainant took the field officer of the 3rd opposite party to another premises without producing any lease deed for the said alternative premises and it turned out that even in that alternative premises a stranger was having a second-hand gunny bag business and that in those circumstances the complainant did not establish himself trustworthy and therefore the 3rd opposite party decided not to sanction and release the loan amount. Merely because the 1st and 2nd opposite parties had approved, recommended and also asked the 3rd opposite party to release the amount after deducting the subsidy amount, it was always open to the 3rd opposite party to make suitable enquiries to find out whether the applicant was a bona fide person; whether he really meant to do business and had the intention to repay the loan granted. Indeed with regard to the grant of or sanctioning of loan, it was the discretion of the bank or the financier concerned. The 3rd opposite party, in the instant case, had exercised such a discretion and verified whether the complainant had any premises in his possession or lease for carrying on the business and on inspection the 3rd opposite party found that the complainant did not satisfy the requirements for grant of the loan. It was in exercise of such a discretion the 3rd opposite party refused to provide loan to the complainant. The District Forum, in our view, rightly dismissed the complaint. We do not find any merit whatsoever in the appeal.
(2.) The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.;