Respondent/complainant submitted an application for sanction of loan under the Prime Minister Rojgar Yojna which was sanctioned in his favour. Grievance of respondent is that though the loan was sanctioned but same had not been paid to him. Inspite of several requests made by him, Petitioner/OP did not release the said loan amount. 2. Petitioner in its written statement took the plea that respondent was requested to come to the bank to draw the loan amount. In this regard two letters were also written, but respondent did not come to take the loan amount. Thus, there is no deficiency in the service on the part of the petitioner. 3. District Forum, vide order dated 28.6.2005, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to disburse the loan to the respondent, as recommenced by Industries and Commerce Department within 45 days failing which, it has to give interest @ 6% p.a. on the loan amount as penalty to the respondent till the actual loan is disbursed. Petitioner was also directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- to the respondent for mental suffering and monetary expenses. In addition, respondent was also directed to intimate the District Forum after disbursement of the loan. 4. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed the same, vide impugned order dated 13.11.2006 observing that when respondent has opened the Saving Bank Account with the petitioner-bank, it ought to have credited the loan amount in his account. State Commission further observed that no such attempt has been made by the petitioner. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner and accordingly dismissed the appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the order of State Commission, petitioner has filed the present revision. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. 7. On 20.2.2007, when present petition came up for hearing before this Commission following order was passed ; Notice to the respondent returnable on 26.04.2007. Meantime, operation of the impugned order passed by the State Commission confirming the order passed by the District Forum is stayed. However, it is made clear that Petitioner-Bank would disburse the loan for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- if complainant execute the necessary required documents for security of loan de hors of the scheme 8. On 26.04.2007, the matter was adjourned to 24.08.2007 at the request of counsel for the respondent. 9. On 24.8.2007, none appeared for the respondent. However, counsel for petitioner pointed out that despite directions by this Commission, respondent is not approaching the Bank for executing the required documents for loan. Considering that aspect, petition was admitted. 10. When matter came up for final hearing, none appeared on behalf of the respondent, despite due service. Since, respondent till date inspite of directions issued by this Commission as far back as on 20.2.2007, has not executed the requisite documents for security of the loan, Petitioner-Bank cannot be blamed for that. 11. Thus, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on part of the petitioner. It appears that respondent himself is not interested in executing the necessary documents for the purpose of obtaining the loan. 12. Under these circumstances, present revision petition is allowed and orders passed by the Fora below are set aside. Consequently, the complaint of the respondent stands dismissed. 13. No order as to costs.