SASWATI BHATTARCHARYA Vs. SHYAMAL SHANKAR BHATTARCHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner against common order dated 25 -04 -2014 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (in short, 'the State Commission') in S.C. Case No. FA/493/2011 Smt. Saswati Bhattacharya & Anr. Vs. Manager, Syndicate Bank & Ors. and & FA/21/2012 Branch Manager & Ors. Vs. Smt. Saswati Bhattacharya & Anr., by which while allowing FA/21/2012, dismissed FA/493/2011, whereby order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent entered into agreement with Opposite Party No. 1 / Respondent No. 1 for taking home loan and Opposite Party No. 1 sanctioned loan of Rs.11,20,000/ - vide letter dated 28 -12 -2006 for purchase of flat. Opposite party released Rs.1,53,000/ - out of the sanctioned amount. Later on there was civil litigation between the complainant and the developer, which was decided in favor of complainant. Complainant requested opposite party to release amount, which was refused by opposite party. Complainant had to obtain loan on stringent terms and conditions from private source for payment to the developer. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that balance loan amount could not be released due to non -observance of the terms and conditions of loan agreement by complainant and due to non -furnishing of document as required by letter dated 16 -03 -2009 and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite party to pay Rs.20,000/ - as compensation and Rs.5,000/ - as cost of litigation. Both the parties filed appeals before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal of the complainant but allowed appeal of the opposite party and set aside order of District Forum and dismissed complaint, against which these revision petitions have been filed.

(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.