2. Petitioners were the complainants before the District Forum. They alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, in that the respondents had failed to execute the agreement for sale even after the complainants had made full payment of the consideration for the flats and received the possession thereof from the respondents. The respondents/opposite parties (OPs) resisted the complaint mainly on the ground that the cost of construction had risen steeply leading to their demand for escalation charges at the rate of Rs.200/- per square foot and that each of the complainants had not paid Rs.2,40,000/- towards the original agreed sale price of the flat.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.3129 OF 2011 (From the order dated 25.03.2011 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in First Appeal no. A/09/941) Ankit Bhatnagar C/o P. K. Bhatnagar Petitioner Resident of 25, Panvel Co-operative Industrial Estate Panvel - 410206 versus 1. Vijay Constructions 305/C, 3rd Floor, Raikar Bhavan Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Respondents 2. Vijay Angre 305/C, 3rd Floor, Raikar Bhavan Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai REVISION PETITION NO.3130 OF 2011 (From the order dated 25.03.2011 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in First Appeal no. A/09/941) Vishal Bhatnagar C/o P. K. Bhatnagar Petitioner Resident of 25, Panvel Co-operative Industrial Estate Panvel – 410206 versus 1. Vijay Constructions 305/C, 3rd Floor, Raikar Bhavan Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Respondents 2. Vijay Angre 305/C, 3rd Floor, Raikar Bhavan Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai REVISION PETITION NO.3131 OF 2011 (From the order dated 25.03.2011 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in First Appeal no. A/09/942) Mrs. G.P. Bhatnagar C/o P. K. Bhatnagar Petitioner Resident of 25, Panvel Co-operative Industrial Estate Panvel – 410206 versus 1. Vijay Constructions 305/C, 3rd Floor, Raikar Bhavan Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Respondents 2. Vijay Angre 305/C, 3rd Floor, Raikar Bhavan Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai REVISION PETITION NO.3132 OF 2011 (From the order dated 25.03.2011 of the Mumbai State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata in First Appeal no. A/09/939) Ms. Priyanka Bhatnagar C/o P. K. Bhatnagar Petitioner Resident of 25, Panvel Co-operative Industrial Estate Panvel - 410206 versus 1. Vijay Constructions 305/C, 3rd Floor, Raikar Bhavan Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Respondents 2. Vijay Angre 305/C, 3rd Floor, Raikar Bhavan Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA MEMBER For the Petitioners Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate Pronounced on 4th January 2012 ORDER ANUPAM DASGUPTA These revision petitions are directed against the order dated 25.03.2011 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeals no. A/ 09/940, A/ 09/941, A/09/942 and A/09/939. The State Commission dismissed each of these appeals though the Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane (in short, ‘the District Forum’) had, by its common order dated 21.05.2009, partially allowed the complaints. As the facts underlying each revision petition/appeal/complaint are more or less identical except the names of the petitioner/complainant, these revision petitions are being dealt with by this common order. 2. Petitioners were the complainants before the District Forum. They alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, in that the respondents had failed to execute the agreement for sale even after the complainants had made full payment of the consideration for the flats and received the possession thereof from the respondents. The respondents/opposite parties (OPs) resisted the complaint mainly on the ground that the cost of construction had risen steeply leading to their demand for escalation charges at the rate of Rs.200/- per square foot and that each of the complainants had not paid Rs.2,40,000/- towards the original agreed sale price of the flat. 3. On consideration of the pleadings, evidence and documents brought on record by the parties, the District Forum directed the OPs to jointly and severally execute the agreement for sale on each complainant by paying the balance consideration for the flat in question. The District Forum further awarded to each complainant Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards cost. 4. Aggrieved by the directions to pay the balance cost to the OPs, each complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission with the result already noticed. 5. We have heard Mr. Madhurendra Kumar and gone through the documents brought on record. The State Commission dismissed each appeal mainly on the grounds that the letter dated 26.05.1995 issued by the respondents/OPs acknowledging the receipt of payment, but did not state that the amount had been received towards the payment of the cost of the flat in question. 6. The letters in question, each dated 26.05.1995 and addressed to the respective complainant/petitioner, read as under: RECEIPT OF PAYMENT Received Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees two lakh forty thousand only) cheque no. 292546 dated 23/05/1995 from Master Ankit Bhatnagar as a friendly loan with interest 2% per month for the period of six months from today. I am bound to repay the amount to Master Ankit Bhatnagar within stipulated time. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For M/s Vijay Constructions [Proprietor] RECEIPT OF PAYMENT Received Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees two lakh forty thousand only) cheque no. 292698 dated 23/05/1995 from Master Vishal Bhatnagar as a friendly loan with interest 2% per month for the period of six months from today. I am bound to repay the amount to Master Vishal Bhatnagar within stipulated time. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For M/s Vijay Constructions [Proprietor] RECEIPT OF PAYMENT Received Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees two lakh forty thousand only) cheque no. 292721 dated 23/05/1995 from Mrs. G.P. Bhatnagar as a friendly loan with interest 2% per month for the period of six months from today. I am bound to repay the amount to Mrs. G.P. Bhatnagar within stipulated time. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For M/s Vijay Constructions [Proprietor] RECEIPT OF PAYMENT Received Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees two lakh forty thousand only) cheque no. 292572 dated 23/05/1995 from Kumari Priyanka Bhatnagar as a friendly loan with interest 2% per month for the period of six months from today. I am bound to repay the amount to Kumari Priyanka Bhatnagar within stipulated time. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For M/s Vijay Constructions [Proprietor]” 7. It is thus crystal clear that these payments were made prior to the letters dated 14.07.1999 written by the respondents confirming the agreement to sell a flat to each of the complainants in “Siddhi Apartments”. Further, as correctly held by the State Commission, none of the receipts, even by implication, suggests that the payment of Rs.2,40,000/- was in any way connected with either any ongoing or future construction by the respondents. 8. In view of this, there is no ground for us to interfere with the impugned orders of the State Commission. The revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, on request, the petitioners are granted the liberty to seek redressal (in respect of recovery of the acknowledged loan amount and interest in each case) before the appropriate civil court, if so advised and also seek the benefit of the Supreme Court’s ruling in similar context in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v P. S. G. Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583. Sd/- …………………………………. [Anupam Dasgupta] Presiding Member Sd/- …………………………………. [Suresh Chandra] Member Satish

The allegation related to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/OP in that redemption proceeds of investments made in the Children Gift Growth Fund Scheme, 1986 (in short, ‘the CGGFS) of the Unit Trust of India (UTI) by the complainant and the members of his family for the benefit of the minors in four out of nine cases had not been remitted to the complainant. The complainant also challenged the legal validity of premature termination of the CGGFS scheme. 3. The defence of the OP before the District Forum was that the CGGFS was no doubt prematurely terminated but this was done in accordance with the statutory authority vested in the UTI/successor-Administrator in terms of clause 33 of the scheme. Further, the redemption proceeds of the investments could not be remitted to the complainant in all the nine cases because the option forms for remitting the proceeds had not been received from the complainant in all cases before the due date of 16.02.2004. As a result, the ARS Bonds and interest warrants in respect of the four cases in question had been prepared subsequently and would be sent along with the interest warrant on receipt of the requisite forms to be filled in by the complainant. Thus, it was claimed on behalf of the OP that no loss had been caused to the complainant because of issuance of ARS bonds. 4. On consideration of the pleadings and material brought on record, the District Forum held that the OP had validly terminated the CGGFS and correctly remitted the redemption proceeds of the investments correctly to the complainant in five cases. Accepting the contention of the OP in the remaining four cases, the District Forum also noticed that the ARS Bonds had been prepared and would be dispatched along with the interest warrants to the complainant, on the latter filing the requisite forms. Therefore, holding that the OP had not committed any deficiency in service, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 129 OF 2007 (From the order dated 06.11.2006 of the Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradoon in First Appeal no. 219 of 2005) M. L. Agrawal, son of Late Pyare Lal Resident of Nainital Road, Ranibagh Petitioner Nainital - 263126 versus Regional Manager and Administrator UTI Investment Services Ltd. 174, 1st Floor, Rajendra Bhavan Respondent Rajendra Place, New Delhi BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA MEMBER For the Petitioner In Person For the Respondent Mr. Dharam Dev, Advocate Pronounced on 4th January 2012 ORDER ANUPAM DASGUPTA This revision petition challenges the order dated 06.11.2006 of the Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradoon (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 219 of 2005. By this order, the State Commission, after detailed discussion of the pleadings and evidence, directed the opposite party (OP)/respondent to ensure that 6.60% Tax Free ARS Assured Return Scheme Bonds of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) along with upto date interest warrants were sent to the complainants within one month from the date of the order. 2. The petitioner was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nainital (in short, ‘the District Forum’). The allegation related to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/OP in that redemption proceeds of investments made in the Children Gift Growth Fund Scheme, 1986 (in short, ‘the CGGFS) of the Unit Trust of India (UTI) by the complainant and the members of his family for the benefit of the minors in four out of nine cases had not been remitted to the complainant. The complainant also challenged the legal validity of premature termination of the CGGFS scheme. 3. The defence of the OP before the District Forum was that the CGGFS was no doubt prematurely terminated but this was done in accordance with the statutory authority vested in the UTI/successor-Administrator in terms of clause 33 of the scheme. Further, the redemption proceeds of the investments could not be remitted to the complainant in all the nine cases because the option forms for remitting the proceeds had not been received from the complainant in all cases before the due date of 16.02.2004. As a result, the ARS Bonds and interest warrants in respect of the four cases in question had been prepared subsequently and would be sent along with the interest warrant on receipt of the requisite forms to be filled in by the complainant. Thus, it was claimed on behalf of the OP that no loss had been caused to the complainant because of issuance of ARS bonds. 4. On consideration of the pleadings and material brought on record, the District Forum held that the OP had validly terminated the CGGFS and correctly remitted the redemption proceeds of the investments correctly to the complainant in five cases. Accepting the contention of the OP in the remaining four cases, the District Forum also noticed that the ARS Bonds had been prepared and would be dispatched along with the interest warrants to the complainant, on the latter filing the requisite forms. Therefore, holding that the OP had not committed any deficiency in service, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. 5. In dealing with the appeal of the complainant, the State Commission also came to the conclusion that the contention of the complainant against the validity of the termination of the CGGF Scheme was not well-founded and as regards the other allegation pertaining to non-receipt of redemption proceeds in four out of the nine cases, the State Commission directed the OPs, as already noticed above. 6. The complainant has chosen to assail both these findings/directions of the State Commission in this revision petition. 7. We have heard the petitioner/complainant in person and Mr. Dharam Dev, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent and considered the documents brought on record. 8. By its orders dated 10.12.2007 and 07.03.2008, this Commission had directed the respondent to pay the sum of Rs.88,278/- to the petitioner along with cost of Rs.1000/-. These directions were complied with, as noticed in the order dated 17.04.2008. The amount of Rs.88,278/- was the sum due according to the petitioner/complainant with interest upto 01.04.2004 @ 12.5% per annum on the redemption proceeds in the remaining three cases, because the ARS Bonds in respect of one of the minor (Chandresh) had been received in the meanwhile. 9. The petitioner claimed that this amount of Rs.88,278/- due on 01.04.2004 as redemption proceeds of the investments in three cases was actually paid in April 2008 by way of five cheques which could be encashed only on 30.04.2008. Accordingly, the petitioner was entitled to interest on this amount @ 12.5% from 01.05.2004 to 30.04.2008. Further, in accordance with the terms of the CGGF Scheme, the two remaining minor investors (accounting for three investments certificate) would be entitled to further compensatory interest @ 6% per annum from 01.05.2008 till attaining the age of maturity. As per the calculation furnished by the petitioner, the interest for the period 01.05.2004 to 30.04.2008 would come to Rs.45,022/- whereas that from 01.05.2008 till the respective dates of maturity of the two minors’ investments (sometime in January 2010) would come to Rs.8,404/-.Thus, the petitioner claimed further payment of Rs.53,426/- out of which he acknowledged the receipt of Rs.23,531/- leaving a balance of Rs.29,395/-. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that in view of this Commission’s direction the respondent had paid Rs.88,278/- as the maturity value of the investments as on 01.04.2004. This included interest/return @ 12.5% per annum, as the petitioner had demanded. The legal validity of the respondent prematurely terminating the CGGFS could not be questioned, as had already been held by both the Fora below. From the petitioner’s admission before the District Forum, it was also quite clear he received/accepted the Bonds in one case and also encashed them. The ARS Bonds carried interest @ 6.60% per annum. Accordingly, the respondents had paid interest of Rs.23,351/- for the period from 01.04.2004 to 30.04.2008 on the principal amount of the redemption value of the investments when payment due in the three remaining cases was made before this Commission in accordance with its directions. This payment of Rs.23,351/- had been acknowledged by the petitioner/complainant. Therefore, no further amount was payable. 11. After careful consideration of the documents and calculations, we are in agreement with Mr. Dharam Dev that the payment due to the petitioner/complainant in accordance with the well-reasoned orders of the State Commission had been made along with interest, as per the admissible rate, for the period of delay that had taken place in making these payments. Therefore, there is no ground for us to pass any further directions beyond what has already been done by this Commission, in view of the payments made by the respondent in April 2008 and thereafter. 12. The revision petition is disposed of in the foregoing terms. Sd/- …………………………………. [Anupam Dasgupta] Presiding Member Sd/- …………………………………. [Suresh Chandra] Member Satish

The respondent was the complainant before the District Forum. As an employee of the petitioner Bank at Chandigarh, he availed of housing loan of Rs. 5 lakh from the Bank’s Zonal Office at Panchkula. The equated monthly installment (EMI) for repayment of the loan was Rs.2780/-. The rate of interest was concessional at 5.10% per annumupto to the loan of Rs.1.10 lakh and 11.10% above the said amount. The loan had to be repaid in 20 years or 70 years of the employee’s age, whichever was earlier. The respondent opted to continue the facility of repaying the EMI till 70 years of his age.=whether the rate of interest re-worked the housing loan was the fixed rate of 13% per annum with quarterly rest, a plain reading of clause 4 (b) of the loan agreement would clearly show that this was not the case. Mr Gupta has argued that the Bank had the right to revise the rate of interest upwards under this clause. Clearly this would negate the very basic agreement that the rate of interest was fixed at 13% per annum. Both the Fora below have held that given the facts, the Bank was not justified in charging interest @ 13% per annum fixed when the relevant clause provided for otherwise. The material brought on record on this issue confirmed the validity of the respondent’s stand and also the findings of the Fora below. There is no ground for us to take a different view.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4403 OF 2010 (From the order dated 24.09.2010 of the Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in First Appeal no. 170of 2010) 1. State Bank of India Corporate Office, Blackbay Reclamation Madam Cama Road Mumbai 2. The Chief General Manager State Bank of India, Local Head Office Sector 17, Chandigarh Petitioners 3. Assistant General Manager (Administration) State Bank of India Zonal Office, Sector 5, Panchkula Haryana 4. The Branch Manager State Bank of India, R.Z. Bazar, Ambala Cantt. Haryana versus Shri N. K. Sharma Son of A. L. Sharma Respondent Resident of 25, Bankers Enclave Ambala Cantt., Haryana BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA MEMBER For the Petitioner Mr. Ram Gupta, Advocate for Mr. S. L. Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent In person Pronounced on 4th January 2012 ORDER ANUPAM DASGUPTA This revision petition challenges the order dated 24.09.2010 of the Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in appeal no. 175 of 2010. By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the appellant Bank and affirmed the order dated 11.03.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, Chandigarh. 2. The respondent was the complainant before the District Forum. As an employee of the petitioner Bank at Chandigarh, he availed of housing loan of Rs. 5 lakh from the Bank’s Zonal Office at Panchkula. The equated monthly installment (EMI) for repayment of the loan was Rs.2780/-. The rate of interest was concessional at 5.10% per annum upto to the loan of Rs.1.10 lakh and 11.10% above the said amount. The loan had to be repaid in 20 years or 70 years of the employee’s age, whichever was earlier. The respondent opted to continue the facility of repaying the EMI till 70 years of his age. 3. The respondent took premature retirement under the then policy of the Bank on 31.03.2001. On such retirement, the respondent was ordinarily required to clear the entire outstanding loan out of his retirement benefits. However, the respondent sought continuation of the housing loan and some other employees also did the same. The Bank formulated a scheme under which concessional housing loans made available to the serving employees were converted into usual housing loans with interest at the applicable commercial rate. The respondent availed of this scheme whereupon the entire principal and interest liability of the housing loan outstanding on 31.03.2001 was clubbed at Rs.6,00,563/-. But the respondent paid back Rs.1,50,563/- thereby reducing the outstanding loan to the balance of Rs.4.50 lakh to which the commercial rate of interest for housing loan @ 13% per annum was applied. The EMI was accordingly re-worked and fixed at Rs.5,830/- for the remaining months upto October 2014. It was also stipulated in the said scheme that if 50% of the retired employee’s monthly pension was less than the EMI, the employee had to furnish a deposit with the Bank, the interest on which would be sufficient to meet the difference between EMI and 50% of the monthly pension amount. Since 50% pension of the respondent was Rs.3,300/- per month, he was asked to furnish a term deposit of Rs.3 lakh, interest on which, i.e., Rs.2,625/- per month was also appropriated towards the balance of the EMI. 4. The clause governing the interest on the loan in accordance with the revised/supplementary loan agreement reads as under: “I agree declare and confirm that further interest with effect from 01.04.2001 on the entire outstanding in my above housing loan account shall be repayable by me with the present commercial rate of interest @ 13% per annum with quarterly rests. I also agree, declare and confirm that the commercial rate of interest shall continue to be paid by me at the rate as and when revised by the Bank till the loan account is closed”. 5. The petitioner Bank revised the usual/commercial rate of interest on housing loan downwards in October 2003 to 8.25% per annum. The downward revision of interest continued further and such loans came to be offered by other Bank at an interest of 7.75% per annum. Accordingly, the respondent represented to the petitioner Bank in April 2004 to lower the rate of interest on the outstanding loan in accordance with the applicable commercial rate of interest on housing loans prevalent at that time. After about a year of correspondence, the respondent’s request was allowed, the loan account was recast and the EMI worked out afresh. However, in April 2006, the petitioner Bank informed the respondent that the rate of interest chargeable on his housing loan could not be reduced from 13% per annum and the facility granted to him earlier was not admissible. Accordingly, the Bank debited Rs.53,640/- to the respondent’s loan account as interest chargeable @ 13% per annum vis à vis that actually charged. The respondent represented against this decision. When nothing was done he filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner Bank and seeking reliefs like refund of the amount of Rs.53,640/-, release of the TDR of Rs. 3 lakh, charging interest at floating rate as on 19.04.2006 as against the fixed rate of 13%, compensation of Rs.5,000/- for harassment and cost of Rs.5,500/-. 6. On consideration of the pleadings, evidence, brought forwarded by the parties, the District Forum found the bank guilty of deficiency in service and issued the following directions: (7) The OPs shall, jointly and severally, do the following: (i) To refund the amount of Rs.53,640/- to the complainant for the wrongful debit on account of the arbitrary change in the EMI and other terms and conditions of the loan agreement. (ii) Charge the revised rate/floating rate of interest with effect from 19.04.2006 onwards from the complainant instead of charging the fixed rate of interest @ 13% per annum as was being erroneously done present. (iii) To pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain to the complainant on account of wrongful debit of the excessive amount of interest from the housing loan account of the complainant. (iv) To pay litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. (v) To release the FDR of Rs.3.00 lakh, which is already under the lien of the OPs in respect of the housing loan, if the same is not required by the OPs in connection with the part payment of the revised/reduced EMIs for repayment of the housing loan. In addition, the entire housing loan account of the complainant be recast and the revised statement of the said account be supplied to the complainant after due re-scheduling/rephrasing of the account. (8) The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs, jointly and severally, within a period of six weeks from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall, jointly and severally, pay the sum of rs.63,640/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e., 29.04.2009, till the date of realization, besides complying with the order as at (v) above”. 7. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the Bank went up in appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed the appeal by its impugned order dated 24.09.2010. This resulted in the present revision petition being filed by the petitioner Bank. 8. We have heard Mr. Ram Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person and gone through the documents brought on record. Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent have also submitted their written arguments, which we have considered. 9. The main ground urged by Mr. Gupta on behalf of the petitioner Bank is that the scheme allowing the retired employees (who took voluntarily retirement in 2001) the facility of repaying the housing loan till they attaining the age of 70 years was a beneficial scheme and provided for fixed interest @ 13 % per annum with quarterly rests. Therefore, such employees, including the respondent, could not be allowed the further benefit of lower rate of interest when the prevalent rate of interest on housing loan fell because of the general market conditions. The second limb of Mr. Gupta’s argument is that the clause relating to interest provided for fixed rate of 13% with quarterly rests. While the Bank was entitled to revise the rate of interest upward under this clause it did not mean that the interest rate according was variable/floating and not fixed. Thirdly, the respondent admitted in his letter dated 29.07.2007 that the rate of interest (13% per annum) was fixed. Finally, Mr. Gupta has argued that the complaint was time-barred as the complaint was filed after two years from the letter dated 19.04.2005. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, the respondent in person has submitted that the Bank had failed to explain the calculation of the amount of Rs.53,640/- that was debited to the respondent account despite this Commission’s direction. Moreover, the basic point regarding the rate of interest chargeable on the re-structured housing loan with effect from 01.04.2001 was governed by clause 4 (b) of the loan agreement. This clause specially provided for “commercial rate of interest” as and when revised by the Bank till the loan account was closed. If the Bank could rely on this clause to claim that it could charge higher rate of interest if the commercial rate of interest went up it was equally bound to charge lower prevailing commercial rate/rates of interest depending on the market condition. Further, having accepted this argument of the respondent to re-work the interest liability in April 2005 the Bank could not unilaterally revise this in violation of clause 4 (b) of the Agreement and debit Rs.53,640/- to the complainant’s loan account. 11. It may notice at the outset that in paragraph 9 of the impugned order, the State Commission has dealt with the question if the complainant was barred by limitation. The State Commission’s findings on this issue are reproduced below: “It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the complainant/respondent had been informed vide letter (Annexure C-16) dated 19.04.2006 declining his request for reduction in the rate of interest and therefore, the complainant/respondent should have challenged the same within two years i.e. by 19.04.2008. He, however, filed the present complaint on 29.04.2009 and according to the learned counsel for the OPs/appellants, the complaint is barred by time. The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent in this respect has argued that Annexure C-16 was not the end of the matter because the complainant filed a representation and correspondence continued between the parties as the case of the complainant remained under consideration. When the complainant requested the OPs/appellants through his letter dated 09.11.2006, he was informed on 21.11.2006 through letter (C-24) that the OPs/appellants were reexamining the matter and would advise him shortly. Thereafter, the OPs/appellants issued a letter C9-25) on 05.12.2006 informing the complainant that the matter was under consideration of appropriate authority. The representation of the complainant against the letter dated 19.04.2006 was, therefore, still under consideration and had not been decided by the OPs/appellants when the present complaint was filed. The counsel for the respondent/complainant then referred to Annexure C-20, which is a letter sent by the OPs/appellants to the Secretary, Banking Ombudsman, New Delhi, in the concluding paragraph of which, it was mentioned that the ex-employee were informed about the actual position vide their letter dated 08.10.2007 and aggrieved by the said letter, the complainant has lodged the present complaint with him. In the next para, it is mentioned that they have already explained the reasons to Shri Sharma (complainant/respondent) for charging fixed rate of interest on his housing loan vide letter dated 08.10.2007 etc., etc. It means that the complainant was informed by the OPs vide letter dated 08.10.2007 and the matter had not finally ended on 19.04.2006 on the issuance of the letter (C-16). Otherwise also, it is a continuing cause of action whereby every month fixed rate of interest is being charged from the complainant instead of floating rate of interest as agreed to between the parties and the complainant giving fresh cause of action every month and therefore, the present complainant cannot be said to be barred by time”. 12. It is thus clear that the contention that the complaint was barred by limitation under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not valid. 13. As regards the substantive issue on whether the rate of interest re-worked the housing loan was the fixed rate of 13% per annum with quarterly rest, a plain reading of clause 4 (b) of the loan agreement would clearly show that this was not the case. Mr Gupta has argued that the Bank had the right to revise the rate of interest upwards under this clause. Clearly this would negate the very basic agreement that the rate of interest was fixed at 13% per annum. Both the Fora below have held that given the facts, the Bank was not justified in charging interest @ 13% per annum fixed when the relevant clause provided for otherwise. The material brought on record on this issue confirmed the validity of the respondent’s stand and also the findings of the Fora below. There is no ground for us to take a different view. 14. However the directions of the District Forum to release the TDR of Rs.3 lakh cannot be upheld. The basic point of the complainant is regarding the rate of interest to be charged on the re-worked housing loan. The other elements of the scheme availed of by the respondent/complainant, namely, only 50% of the monthly pension being applied towards the payment of EMI, etc., cannot be altered by the directions of the Consumer Fora because there is no deficiency in service in relation thereto. If only 50% of the respondent’s pension is to be applied towards the payment of EMI, it is necessary that the payment of the balance of the EMI be also duly secured. 15. In conclusion, the revision petition is partly allowed while maintaining the findings of the Fora below regarding deficiency in the service on the part of the petitioner Bank in charging interest at the rate of 13% per annum irrespective of the provisions of the relevant clause of the loan agreement. The petitioner Bank shall therefore, credit back the sum of Rs.53,640/- to the housing loan account of the respondent and recalculate the EMI in accordance with the commercial rate of interest prevalent from time to time. The other relief of compensation of Rs.5,000/-to the respondent is maintained. The petitioner is also directed to pay a total cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent relating to the proceedings before this Commission. Sd/- …………………………………. [Anupam Dasgupta] Presiding Member Sd/- …………………………………. [Suresh Chandra] Member

M/s U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited, who runs a cold storage at Semri, Jamalpur, Tehsil Ghosi, District Mau, U.P., has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on part of the National Insurance Company Limited, claiming a compensation of Rs.53,26,869.60 ps.=The only basis which in our view would be to base the quantum of loss on the basis of the ‘on the spot observation’ of the surveyor in his first report dated 10th of September, 1997, in which he has categorically mentioned that 1000 bags of potatoes were thoroughly damaged and were dumped outside in the compound. No doubt, the Manager of the cold storage had pleaded with him that the actual damage was more than 4000 bags. Be that as it may, however, in the claim it has been stated that 29593.72 quintals of potatoes were damaged, which cannot be believed, especially when one chamber was not affected and the surveyor had opined that even with respect to chamber no. I only 10% of the potatoes had been damaged. Thus, to strike a balance we may at the most take a figure of 4000 bags of potatoes as the loss, which would come to 3480 quintals and calculated @ Rs.180/- per quintal the total loss would come to Rs.6,26,400/-. This award of compensation to our mind would meet the ends of justice and we direct the opposite party-Insurance Company to pay this amount with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint before this Commission within a period of six weeks, failing which it will attract interest of 9% per annum for the period of default

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 128 OF 2000 M/s U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. 32, Station Road, Lucknow, U.P. Through the Manager PCF Cold Storage Semri, Jamalpur, Tehsil Ghosi District Mau, U.P. ..... Complainant (s) Versus 1. National Insurance Company Limited Regd. Office Middleton Street Kolkata Through the Manager National Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office Near Jeevan Ram Inter College Maunath Bhanjan District Mau, U.P. 2. National Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Azamgarh Office Marval Bhavan Civil Lines, Azamgarh ...... Opp. Party (ies) BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER For the Complainant (s) : Ms. Vibha Narang, Advocate for Mrs. Rani Chabra, Advocate For the Opposite Party (ies) : Mr. Maibam N. Singh, Advocate for Mr. Joy Basu, Advocate Dated: 4th January, 2012 ORDER PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER 1. M/s U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited, who runs a cold storage at Semri, Jamalpur, Tehsil Ghosi, District Mau, U.P., has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on part of the National Insurance Company Limited, claiming a compensation of Rs.53,26,869.60 ps. 2. Facts culminating in the complaint stated briefly are that the complainant had purchased a Refrigeration Plant (Stock) Policy covering the period from 7th of April, 1997 to 6th of November, 1997 on payment of a premium of Rs.60,329/-. The policy was to cover the risk to 40,000 quintals of potatoes at the average price of Rs.180/- per quintal. Thus, the value of the insurance was 40,000 quintals x Rs.180 = Rs.72,00,000/-. While the cover note was issued on the 7th of April, 1997, the policy document laying down the terms and conditions was, however, received by the complainant only on the 13th of June, 1997. It so happened that because of fluctuation in the power supply and subsequent power failure, the compressor of the cold storage got damaged on the 24th of August, 1997. The opposite party-Insurance Company, though it is claimed by the complainant, was informed on the same very day on phone, however, were formally communicated in writing about the breakdown incident on the 27th of August, 1997. A surveyor on behalf of the opposite party-Insurance Company, however, visited the cold storage for the first time on the 9th of September, 1997. Meanwhile, the complainant had initiated various steps, including advertisement in the local Press, urging the potato growers, who had stored their crops, to remove their stock which was deteriorating very fast due to the breakdown. Because of the vagaries of weather and in the absence of any alternative arrangement to restore the power supply, the temperature in the cold storage chambers started rising significantly severely damaging the stored potatoes. All possible steps including segregation as advised by the surveyor in his report dated 10th of September, 1997 to minimize the loss were also taken by the complainant but the damage/loss had already occasioned beyond redemption. The surveyor made a second visit on 18th of September, 1997 but made no assessment of the loss despite having noticed that during his visit on the 9th of September, 1997, the stock in chamber no. 2 had deteriorated badly, apart from sprouting upto 8” in length. The potatoes in this chamber were rotting and fowl smelling. He had further taken note of the fact that approximately 1000 bags opened and damaged potatoes were dumped outside in the compound. 3. In his letter dated 22nd of September, 1997 addressed to the complainant regarding the outcome of his second visit, the surveyor impressed upon the complainant that irrespective of whether his claim is tenable under the policy conditions or otherwise, there was great urgency of disposing of the potato stock held in chamber no.I, as, according to him, except for about 10% stock, the rest of the potatoes in chamber no. I were in good condition. Additionally, he appears to have asked for some additional documents/papers perhaps to enable him to assess the correct quantum of damage/loss. While the complainant claims that the desired papers were duly forwarded but there was no response from the opposite party-Insurance Company with regard to any further visit by the surveyor and, therefore, the complainant had no other option but to file his claim as per his own assessment, which was done on the 8th of December, 1997. The opposite party-Insurance Company, however, failed to respond to the claim forcing the complainant to make several requests which also did not evoke any response. Distressed and disappointed with the conduct of the opposite party-Insurance Company, the complainant had no other option but to file this complaint on the 8th of March, 2000. During the pendency of the complaint, however, the opposite party-Insurance Company, have repudiated the claim of the complainant vide their letter dated 15th of September, 2000. 4. In response to the notice issued by this Commission on the complaint, the opposite party-Insurance Company has filed its written version and have contested the claim. In their written version, the opposite party-Insurance Company have raised preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable being barred by limitation and that the complaint is not maintainable as the claim stands already repudiated vide their communicated dated 15th of September, 2000 and, therefore, there was no subsisting cause of action to the complainant. It was pleaded that while the alleged damage to the compressor occurred on the 24th of August, 1997, it was only on the 27th of August, 1997 that intimation with regard to the breakdown was given to them. Additionally and more importantly, they have also taken the plea that there has been gross violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, inasmuch as loading of potatoes started when the temperature was 38.5OC as against the maximum of 34OC in terms of warranty clause no.6. Further, the temperature all through after the loading remained well above the prescribed temperature and further that as against the stipulated condition that no stock of potato should have been accepted for storage after 15th of April, 1997 without their written permission, the complainant had continued loading of potatoes upto 27th of April, 1997. Thus, the thrust of the written version is on the breach/violation of the terms and conditions of the policy while some other grounds also have been taken that the complainant despite the advice from the surveyor did not take adequate action to minimize the loss specially when the surveyor had stated that only 10% of the stock in chamber no. I had been affected, the complainant took no step to sell or dispose of the stock of the balance stock of potatoes. Based on the report of the surveyor, they have justified their stand to repudiate the claim. 5. In the rejoinder to the written version, the complainant has strongly controverted the pleas and objections of the opposite party-Insurance Company and has reiterated its stand in the complaint. 6. In order to substantiate their respective pleas, affidavits on behalf of the complainant have been filed by Shri Tarunesh Kumar, District Manager/In-charge of cold storage and Shri Jawahar Lal Vishwakarma, the operator in the cold storage, besides some documents relating to the details of electrical breakdown, press release issued directing the farmers to lift the potatoes from the cold storage to minimize loss, some letters issued to the client potato growers, copy of the insurance claim etc. On behalf of the opposite party-Insurance Company, an affidavit by one Shri A.K. Gupta, Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Delhi Regional Office has been filed. An affidavit from their surveyor Lt. Col. D.P. Jairath, Chartered Accountant, has also been filed. Parties have generally relied upon their respective documentary evidence in support of their case. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case. It is not in dispute that the complainant M/s U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited had purchased two insurance policies, one for a sum of Rs.72,00,000/- for Refrigeration Plant (Stock) Policy covering the period from 7th of April, 1997 to 6th of November, 1997 and another for the Plant & Machinery. The dispute pertains only to the stock policy. It is also not in dispute that the compressor of the cold storage was damaged due to fluctuation in the power supply and subsequent power failure since this has not been challenged by the opposite party-Insurance Company. The claim of the complainant that information with regard to the incident was given on the same day on the telephone has not been denied or controverted by the opposite party-Insurance Company but they admit that a formal communication dated 27th of August, 1997 with regard to the damage to the compressor was received by them. Even though the opposite party-Insurance Company has tried to raise this as an issue of delay on part of the complainant, we are not inclined to accept their objection on this ground. 8. As per their own showing, the opposite party-Insurance Company appointed a surveyor Lt. Col. D.P. Jairath, who for the first time visited the premises of the cold storage on the 9th of September, 1997, a fortnight after the occurrence of the incident. With regard to this first visit, his report being relevant is reproduced below :- “The Manager 10.09.1997 P C F Cold Storage Semri Jallalpur Distt. Mau Nath Bhanjan (U.P.) Ref. : Your D.O.S. Claim – damage to Potatoes stock – Policy under Cover Note No. 252553 dated 07.04.1997. Dear Sirs, At the request of R.O. Lucknow of your underwriters National Insurance Co. Ltd. Mau Nath Bhanjan, I have taken up the survey of your above loss/claim. In this connection I visited your cold storage on 09.09.97 and carried out the survey with the assistance of Shri Hira Lal and Shri Kailash Rai. Both the chambers were inspected and it was noted that chamber No. 1 had potatoes stock in much better health but the stock in chamber No.2 had deteriorated badly. Apart from sprouting upto 8 in length, the potatoes in this chamber were rotting and badly smelling. Approx 1000 B/s opened and damaged potatoes were dumped outside in the compound. Shri Hira Lal stated that the actual damage may be much more than 4000 Bags reported earlier. He also stated that already Two Notices have been published in the local Newspapers requesting the farmer owners to unload and remove their potatoes from the cold storage. The undersigned had advised on the spot that immediate loss minimization steps be taken in consultation with your R.O. Azamgarh and local authorities to arrange unloading and removal of saleable potatoes. Also the segregation of damaged and undamaged potatoes be taken up on warfooting so that further damage can be avoided and actual loss may be assessed reasonably accurately. The above aspects were emphasized then and I take this opportunity to reiterate the same again. Please take immediate action to unload and dispose of saleable stock and also to segregate the damaged and undamaged potatoes. Also please inform me on telephone when can I come and verify the damaged potatoes. Even if complete segregation may not be possible immediately I would like to visit you at the earliest again when sufficient segregation is over. PLEASE INTIMATE WHEN CAN I VISIT YOU AGAIN for the above verification. You books have already been signed by me. The papers/information required from you will be intimated after my next visit. Thank you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- (D.P. JAIRATH) Copy to :- National Insurance Co. Ltd. D.O. : Mau The loading was continued upto 26.04.1997. Details of loss and liability will be sent to your office after my next visit which is expected to be after about one week.” National Insurance Co. Ltd. R.O. : Lucknow (emphasis added) 8A. As can be seen from this letter addressed to the Manager of the complainant with a copy to the opposite party-Insurance Company, approximately 1000 bags of potatoes were already fully damaged and were dumped outside in the compound by the time the surveyor visited the cold storage. He had also taken note of the complainant’s efforts to minimize the losses by inserting two notices in the local newspapers requesting the potato owners to take away their stocks from the cold storage. Rather than assessing the loss in quantitative and financial terms, the surveyor thought it fit to only sign the books and go away with added sermons to take some more steps to minimize further loss. Even when he returned to the cold storage after a week on the 18th of September, 1997, he again did not undertake to assess the loss but advised the Manager of the complainant that irrespective of whether the claim is tenable under the policy conditions or otherwise, there was great urgency of disposing of the potato stock held in chamber no. I. However, vide his letter dated 20th of October, 1997 giving his final report to the opposite party-Insurance Company, the surveyor has made no mention of the damage of stock which he had personally seen and recorded earlier nor does he make any mention of the complainant having been asked/questioned with regard to the breach/violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. A reading of the final report leaves no manner of doubt that the surveyor was under some kind of a pressure to forward his final report only on the basis of the breach of terms and conditions. The stand taken by the complainant is that, while the cover note for the policy was issued on the 7th of April, 1997, which did not mention any terms and condition, the policy document containing the terms and conditions was issued by the opposite party-Insurance Company on the 11th of June, 1997, which was received by him on the 13th of June, 1997. This is a matter of fact which has not been denied by the opposite party-Insurance Company. Obviously, therefore, the complainant until the receipt of the policy document could not be expected to know the stipulation and terms and conditions incorporated in the policy. It is not the case of the opposite party-Insurance Company that it was a renewal of any earlier policy and, therefore, to say that there is a breach of terms and conditions which was not known to the complainant cannot be a ground for foisting the blame on the complainant. 8B. In this respect, we would respectfully rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Modern Insulators Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2000) 2 SCC 734], in which it has been held that :- “It is the fundamental principle of insurance law that utmost good faith must be observed by the contracting parties and good faith forbids either party from non-disclosure of the facts which the parties know. The insured has a duty to disclose and similarly it is the duty of the insurance company and its agents to disclose all material facts in their knowledge since the obligation of good faith applies to both equally (para 8). Since the terms and conditions of the standard policy wherein the exclusion clause postulating cesser of the insurance in case of second-hand/used property was included, were neither a part of the contract of insurance nor disclosed to the insured, the insurer could not claim the benefit of the said exclusion clause (Paras 9 and 5).” The principle enunciated in this judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court is fully applicable to the facts of this case since the opposite party-Insurance Company had not informed/communicated the terms and conditions of the policy in time and the complainant oblivious of such terms and conditions had undertaken the loading operations. 9. Since the entire case of the opposite party-Insurance Company is based on the premise that the complainant has not adhered to maintaining the temperature prescribed at the stage prior to the loading of the potato stock, during the loading and in the post-loading phase, as prescribed in the terms and conditions of the policy, which was not known to the complainant, and especially when the complainant has argued that the representatives of the Insurance Company/surveyor were present at the time of loading and nobody ever informed that loading of potato after 15th of April, 1997 required their prior approval, we find substance in the said argument. It is not that loading after 15th of April, 1997 was totally prohibited but only it required the approval of the opposite party-Insurance Company, which in the present case can safely be inferred to be available to the complainant as their own representative was present at the premises when the loading was going on after the 15th of April, 1997. 10. The opposite party-Insurance Company has come out with another defence that even prior to the breakdown/damage to the compressor, there has been negligence on part of the complainant to maintain the temperature as per the requirement despite there being one or two compressors in working condition, due to lack of proper planning and diligence which had already raised the temperature in the chambers considerably and according to them it was not a breakdown on the 24th of August, 1997 that alone was the cause of rise in the temperature in the cold chambers and subsequent damage to the potatoes. We are not inclined to buy this argument as the opposite party-Insurance Company has failed to promptly depute their surveyor to visit the cold storage and a delay of about two weeks is a rather long period for the potato stock to deteriorate especially during the month of August/September. Thus, we are of the opinion that there has been negligence on part of the opposite party-Insurance Company and the deficiency in the service is apparent. 11. Now coming to the question of compensation, we find that despite an endorsement to the opposite party-Insurance Company in his letter dated 10th of September, 1997 (Annexure R-4) that details all loss and liability will be sent after his next visit which was expected to be after about a week, the surveyor after the second visit in his letter dated 22nd of September, 1997 has given no reason as to why he was not in a position to assess the loss. He had not detailed any requirement of documents/letters required from the Manager of the cold storage if they were very necessary for him to assess the total losses. Interestingly, within a month from this communication, he has sent his final report to the opposite party-Insurance Company without giving any intimation with regard to his mind to the complainant. Thus, we are now faced with a situation where there is no estimate of the loss by the surveyor. The complainant has, however, made a claim of Rs.53,26,869.60 ps. stating that 3523 bags of white potatoes and 30436 bags of red potatoes were totally damaged and has calculated the loss @ Rs.180/- per quintal. Details with regard to the actual stock in the cold storage on the date of the incident, the quantity segregated and salvaged and disposed of and the quantity taken away by the stockists have not been furnished. In the absence of any evidence with regard to the claim and for want of an assessment by the surveyor, we are in a somewhat piquant situation to award a compensation, which the complainant deserves. The only basis which in our view would be to base the quantum of loss on the basis of the ‘on the spot observation’ of the surveyor in his first report dated 10th of September, 1997, in which he has categorically mentioned that 1000 bags of potatoes were thoroughly damaged and were dumped outside in the compound. No doubt, the Manager of the cold storage had pleaded with him that the actual damage was more than 4000 bags. Be that as it may, however, in the claim it has been stated that 29593.72 quintals of potatoes were damaged, which cannot be believed, especially when one chamber was not affected and the surveyor had opined that even with respect to chamber no. I only 10% of the potatoes had been damaged. Thus, to strike a balance we may at the most take a figure of 4000 bags of potatoes as the loss, which would come to 3480 quintals and calculated @ Rs.180/- per quintal the total loss would come to Rs.6,26,400/-. This award of compensation to our mind would meet the ends of justice and we direct the opposite party-Insurance Company to pay this amount with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint before this Commission within a period of six weeks, failing which it will attract interest of 9% per annum for the period of default. 12. The complaint, accordingly, is partly allowed in the above terms. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Sd/- ( R. C. JAIN, J. ) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/- (S.K. NAIK) (MEMBER) Mukesh

developer’s deficiency service =the petitioner/developer had entered into an agreement for sale of a flat to be constructed by him to the respondent no.1/complainant for a cost of Rs.3,60,000/-. He had already received a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- and on account of the non-payment of the balance amount of Rs.30,000/-, the petitioner not only revoked the sale agreement but also sold the said flat to a third party. Obviously, being aggrieved the respondent no.1/complainant approached the District Forum, who, as stated above, not only directed the petitioner to refund the amount already paid by the complainant with interest but also awarded a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injustice and deficiency perpetrated by the petitioner. Aggrieved with the said decision of the District Forum, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the State Commission, which too, as stated above, has been dismissed with a cost of Rs.1000/-.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3279 OF 2011 [Against the order dated 11.08.2011 in Appeal No. 373/2010 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata] Chabi Das S/o Mr. Anil Das 66/H/4, Tiljala Masjid Bari Bye Lane Police Station Tiljala Kolkata-700039, West Bengal … Petitioner Versus 1. Ranjit Kr. Chowdhury S/o Ashok Kr. Chowdhury Police Station Tiljala Kolkata-700039, West Bengal 2. Ms. Priyabal Paul W/o Sri Kartick Chandra Paul 517, Laskar Hut Road Police Station Tiljala Kolkata-700039, West Bengal … Respondent BEFORE : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Sukalyan Sarkar, Advocate Pronounced on : 4th January, 2012 O R D E R PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER 1. This revision petition has been filed by Mr. Chabi Das (the developer/builder), who was opposite party no.1 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alipore, Kolkata (District Forum for short), aimed at challenging the order dated 11th of August, 2011 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (State Commission for short), dismissing his appeal with a cost of Rs.1000/-. The appeal had been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25th of January, 2010 of the District Forum, vide which the petitioner has been directed to refund a sum of Rs.3,29,000/- to the respondent no.1/complainant within one month from the date of the order together with interest @ 10% per annum w.e.f. 1st of December, 2005 and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation, besides Rs.1000/- towards the cost of litigation. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner/developer had entered into an agreement for sale of a flat to be constructed by him to the respondent no.1/complainant for a cost of Rs.3,60,000/-. He had already received a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- and on account of the non-payment of the balance amount of Rs.30,000/-, the petitioner not only revoked the sale agreement but also sold the said flat to a third party. Obviously, being aggrieved the respondent no.1/complainant approached the District Forum, who, as stated above, not only directed the petitioner to refund the amount already paid by the complainant with interest but also awarded a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injustice and deficiency perpetrated by the petitioner. Aggrieved with the said decision of the District Forum, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the State Commission, which too, as stated above, has been dismissed with a cost of Rs.1000/-. 3. We are surprised that the petitioner/builder is yet not convinced with the justice imparted by the two fora below and has ventured to file this revision petition. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on admission of this revision petition. 5. The only ground advanced by the learned counsel is that the complainant had not taken any steps to pay the balance consideration within the stipulated period and further that the District Forum had decided the matter in their absence, which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. We summarily reject this argument for the simple reason that the petitioner having received Rs.3,30,000/- against a total consideration of Rs.3,60,000/- could not be expected to say that the complainant was at fault for not paying the balance amount of Rs.30,000/- and take possession of the flat. Learned counsel has failed to produce any communication/letter addressed by him to the complainant demanding the payment of the balance amount of Rs.30,000/- or having issued any notice stating therein that failure of the payment of Rs.30,000/- will entail cancellation. It is clear from the orders of the fora below that notice on the complaint had been duly served on the opposite parties but for reasons, which is now clear as the petitioner/builder had already sold out the flat, they did not appear before the District Forum deliberately having disposed of the flat meant for the complainant to a third party. It is not difficult to guess as to why the petitioner was in such great hurry to dispose of the flat constructed on the money received from the complainant and greed appears to be the main motive since price of real estate escalate very fast. 6. In this case, both the fora below have delivered a concurrent finding and in that background our role in exercise of Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is very limited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [II (2010) CPJ 19 (SC)], on this subject has held as under :- “23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora” . 7. Respectfully, drawing support from the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court as above, we do not find that there is any prima facie jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice in the impugned order, warranting our interference. On the contrary, any interference may result in miscarriage of justice to the complainant. 8. The revision petition, accordingly, is dismissed at the stage of admission itself with a cost of Rs.5000/- to be deposited by the petitioner/developer in the legal aid account of this Commission within a period of four weeks. Sd/- ( R. C. JAIN, J. ) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/- (S.K. NAIK) (MEMBER) Mukesh