SURESH KUMAR KHURANA Vs. SANDEEP BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/Opposite Party being aggrieved by impugned order dated 16.4.2015 passed by State Commission, Delhi (for short, 'State Commission') in F.A. No.819 of 2008 has filed the present revision.

(2.) Brief facts of this case are, that Respondent/ Complainant filed a consumer complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Janakpuri, New Delhi (for short, 'District Forum'). It is stated that respondent approached Petitioner through daily Newspaper "The Hindustan Times" in month of November-December 1992 to get help for arranging loan of Rs.25 lacs for his business needs. Petitioner assured the respondent in writing on his personal pad paper to arrange and help in disbursement of Rs.25 lacs positively by March, 1993 and for this service to be provided to the respondent, he got a cheque for Rs. 1 lac from him, for which receipts were issued by petitioner.

(3.) It is stated, that service charges were refundable viz, if loan of Rs.25 lacs could not be arranged upto March, 1993, hence amount of Rs.1 lac taken by petitioner was to be refunded. Subsequent thereto, petitioner introduced respondent to one Mr. Gurdev Singh Sahni. The loan agreement was entered into between respondent and Mr. Gurdev Singh Sahni, which loan agreement was witnessed by the petitioner. Mr. Gurdev Singh Sahni issued cheque dated 12.08.1993 amounting to Rs.25 lacs to the respondent but the same was dishonoured and was received back by the respondent with the remarks "not sufficient fund". Because of dishonor of the cheque, respondent approached petitioner and asked him to refund the advance of Rs 1 lac. After various personal and telephonic requests by the respondent, petitioner refunded him Rs.30,000/-and for rest of Rs.70,000/- a cheque signed by Mr. Gurdev Singh Sahni was issued which could not be realized, as the same was also dishonored by the bankers and was returned to the respondent with the remarks "funds insufficient". Respondent, therefore, approached the District Forum for the relief against petitioner who had promised him to arrange for loan of Rs.25 lacs.