PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. RAJENDRA MAHARANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order dtd. 11/8/2017 in First Appeal No. 664 of 2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (in short, the 'State Commission') arising from the order dtd. 23/9/2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (in short, the 'District Forum') in Consumer Complaint no. 85 of 2014. The State Commission's order upholds the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint of the respondent/complainant. This order will also dispose of Revision Petition No. 3519 of 2017 which arises from the same set of facts and has the same grievance. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from RP 3518 of 2017.

(2.) The brief conspectus of facts, as per the petitioner/opposite party, are that the petitioner sanctioned a loan of Rs.19,00,000.00 to respondents 1 and 2 under the United Housing Loan Scheme on 20/10/2010 based on their application for the stated purpose of purchase of land and construction of a house. Disbursements were made in tranches to the Savings Bank account of the respondents who made payments to the contractor (respondent no. 3) from time to time. Respondent no. 1 executed the following loan/security documents on 20/10/2010:

(3.) Respondents 1 and 2 filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum against respondent 3 praying for completion of construction and handing over of the house as per agreement, refund of Rs.1,95,000.00, and in case the construction was not completed, Rs.9,12,763.00 which was the value of the balance of the incomplete work should not be recovered from the complainants/respondent 1 and 2 who would undertake fyrther construction. Rs.2,00,000.00 towards future loss due to cost escalation was also sought. The petitioner Bank was proceeded ex parte and the complaint allowed on 23/9/2016 with compensation and costs. On appeal, the State Commission was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner Bank had not filed a reply before the District Forum and did not rebut the submissions. This order is impugned before us by way of the instant Revision Petition.