JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order at District Forum, Chamoli directing 1the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 80/- as expenses. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that there was a severe earth quake in Garhwal region in 98-99. The Government of Uttar Pradesh, as then it was, was working to rehabilitate earth quake victims, the state of UP also approached the appellant to establish an office at Gopeshwar to collect and process the applications for loan for the construction of low cost houses. The loan was to be granted at Lucknow by the HUDCO. The Petitioner opened his office to process the applications. The applicant also made an application but he was not given the loan. Therefore he has suffered mentally and physically. He had spent Rs. 80/- in sending the applications etc. A sum of Rs. 500/- was deposited by the claimant but it has admittedly been refunded to him. When he was not heard to meet his grievances• and to get compensation, he approached the District Forum. 3. The appellant contested the petition and he has specifically alleged that the loan was not to be sanctioned at Gopeshwar. It was to be sanctioned at Lucknow. Since, the petitioner did not complete the formalities, the loan was not sanctioned to him even at Lucknow. 4. The learned District Forum has found that the appellants have befooled the applicants for loan and therefore allowed compensation to the claimant. Therefore, this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. That which was defence of the appellant that no Joan was to be sanctioned at Gopeshwar, has become the ground of attack for the claimant and the learned District Forum by holding that the appellant has defrauded the society because they did not given any loan to even a single man at Gopeshwar. The case was mis-read. Actually, no loan was to be granted at Gopeshwar. Any person who could have completed the formalities could have been sanctioned the loan by the Lucknow Head Office. It is not said by the complainant that a person who has completed the formalities has not been granted the loan. If this is not proved, there is no question of any fraud. Any person who could have completed the formalities could have been sanctioned the loan by the Lucknow Head Office. It is not said by the complainant that a person who has completed the formalities has not been granted the loan. If this is not proved, there is no question of any fraud. The papers also show that the Jar is to be granted by the Lucknow Head Office and not at Gopeshwar. The office order No. 1671 - 1999 of the HUDCO specifically shows that office established at Gopeshwar was to be under the control of Lucknow. The brochure shows that only the application was to be submitted at HUDCO Nivas. In his application dated 11.10.2000, the complainant alleged to have received in the office of the manager of the appellant at Lucknow on 10.10.2000, the claimant himself admitted that all his papers were complete but he could not send it within time because he has gone to Delhi. The papers were not received by the appellants. Therefore, by letter dated 19.2.200 again the papers were demanded. In the letter dated 29.6.2000 also the appellants have specifically informed that no papers have been received. Therefore, his demand draft of Rs. 500/- is returned. The loan could not be granted to him by the appellant because the papers were not complete. The claimant also received back his draft. There is no question of any fraud or deficiency in the service of the appellant. Nobody can expect the waiver of all the formalities in the grant of any loan. There is no proof with the claimant to show that he had completed all themalities for the grant of the loan. If there was failure on the part of the complain ant himself, there is no question of compensation. 6. The order of the District Forum is not correct and is to be set aside. ORDER The appeal is hereby allowed. The judgment and order of the District Forum dated 18.8.2002 is hereby set aside. The complaint is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.