Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 05.03.2010 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur in First Appeal No. 1303 of 2009. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 13.8.2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Jaipur dismissing the complaint of the complainant / respondent alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner bank in not disbursing the sanctioned loan amount to the complainant despite the complainant having completed all requisite formalities. The complaint was resisted on the ground that the loan could not be disbursed to the complainant because he failed to furnish collateral security of property in order to enable the bank to disburse the sanctioned loan which was the condition of the sanction. While doing so, the bank had returned the process fee amounting to Rs.2645/- charged by them for processing the loan application. The District Forum, going by the pleas, held the bank not liable for any deficiency in service and accordingly dismissed the complaint. In appeal, the State Commission took a different view and has partly allowed the complaint with a direction to the bank to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- with the stipulation that if the amount is not paid within two months, it shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. 2. We have heard Mr. Anuj Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondent as respondent remained unrepresented on record despite due service of the notice through registered A.D. post. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner bank would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that the State Commission has erred in appreciating the facts & circumstances of the case as also the order is not in consonance with the settled legal position. We find force in his submission because it has been amply brought on record that the complainant had failed to comply with all the requisite conditions subject to which the loan was sanctioned and in particular in regard to furnishing collateral security as asked for by the bank before release of the amount. On the failure of the complainant to furnish such security, the bank had the option and it was rightly exercised to recall the sanction order. Bank even returned the process fee which legally they were not bound to do once the fee had been fully utilized in processing the application. 4. In our view, the State Commission has misguided itself in making the impugned order because bank could not be held guilty for any deficiency in service in the above facts & circumstances. Revision petition is accordingly allowed and the order of the State Commission is hereby set aside. As a result, the complaint shall be deemed to have been dismissed, however no order as to cost. | 
