JUDGMENT - W.M. SAMBRE, President :---Heard Mr. Kularwar, the learned Counsel for the appellant. He contends that the representation made by the bank i.e. respondent that they have floated the scheme of recurring deposit and after the particular period, the appellant was entitled for loan for construction of the houses. After completing the deposit, the appellant approached the banking authority for the loan and the bank asked for various documents which were provided by the appellant. The bank did not sanction the loan to the appellant. Therefore he approached the District Forum for seeking direction to the bank for sanction of the loan. It is contended that the District Fourm has wrongly come to the conclusion that there is no privity of contract between the parties and therefore the complaint was dismissed on the ground of maintainability. Hence, the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. Mr. Kularwar further contends that inspite of the demand made by the bank from time to time for supply of the documents they cannot take a stand that the appellant is not entitled for the loan for which he started the recurring deposit in more than 3 accounts. 3. The representative of the bank Mr. Ramaswami appeared in person and stated that the appellant is a known customer of the bank. He and his family are having 5 to 6 bank accounts. One of the accounts is in the name of the appellant himself. The appellant was in default and the bank has considered the aspect by filing the case against him. It is not the case that the appellant was not aware of the banking procedure and, therefore, the contention raised by the appellant that he has been duped by the bank is not correct. 4. After hearing the counsel of the appellant and the representative of the bank, we have gone through the papers and also the files of the bank and the inquiry was made with the bank representative as to why they collected the documents from the appellant when the appellant is not entitled for the loan. The fact is that the appellant has account and he is a defaulter and therefore he was not having repaying capacity and therefore, his application for loan was not processed. The appellant head office did not permit to process the case for granting of the loan for the housing. The fact is that the appellant has account and he is a defaulter and therefore he was not having repaying capacity and therefore, his application for loan was not processed. The appellant head office did not permit to process the case for granting of the loan for the housing. The view taken by the District Forum is perfectly right and there is nothing to interfere with. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. *****