PARTAP SINGH Vs. MAHAVIR SINGH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/complainants against the impugned order dated 18.01.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission ') in Appeal No. 826/2007 (Hry)/RBT/712/2007 and Appeal No. 677/2007 (Hry)/RBT/07/2008 - Pratap Singh and Ors. Vs. Mahinder Singh Yadav & Ors. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside and complaint was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that complainants/petitioners entered into an agreement on 18.2.2005 to purchase agricultural land for Rs.34.50 lakhs and paid Rs.4,00,000/ - as earnest money to the vendors with the promise that they will get the sale deed executed upto 30.3.2005, failing which, earnest money would be forfeited. Complainants applied for loan with OPs/respondents and deposited Rs.4,000/ - each for processing of loan on 21.2.2005. OP No. 4 sanctioned loan of Rs.21,31,000/ - vide letter dated 28.2.2005 and all the formalities for obtaining loan were completed by the complainants. Later on, OP No. 4 vide letter dated 9.3.2005 sanctioned loan of Rs.30,00,000/ - as per collector rate list, but loan was not released. From time to time, period of executing deed was got extended by the complainant, but as OP failed to release the loan amount and complainant failed to make payment under agreement to sell, Vendor forfeited the earnest money of Rs.4,00,000/ -. Complainants alleging deficiency on the part of OPs filed complaint and claimed Rs.4,10,000/ - as compensation along with interest. OPs contested complaint and submitted that loan was never sanctioned and complainants never completed formalities; hence, complaint be dismissed. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed the complaint and directed OPs to pay Rs.4,10,000/ - and further directed to pay Rs.30,000/ - as compensation and Rs.2200/ - as cost of litigation along with 12% p.a. interest. Appeal filed by the petitioners for enhancement was dismissed and appeal filed by the respondents was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that even after sanction of loan, respondents have not released loan and committed deficiency and learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint, but learned State Commission has committed error in passing the impugned order; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed.