PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/OP against the impugned order dated 13.10.2011 passed by the Learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No.154 of 2011 Krishan Lal Juneja Vs. Standard Chartered Bank by which, while allowing appeal, set aside order of dismissal of complaint passed by District Forum and directed OP to refund Rs.2,52,574.53 along with compensation of Rs.30,000/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Respondent along with his son and daughter-in-law obtained loan of Rs.60,00,000/- from OP/petitioner. Subsequently, due to higher rate of interest, the complainant decided to make pre-mature payment. OP agreed to the request of the complainant for pre-mature payment, but vide letter dated 9.9.2010, OP demanded Rs.2,52,574.53, as prepayment charges. Complainant under protest deposited the aforesaid amount along with due loan amount and closed the account. Complainant, alleging deficiency on the part of OP, filed complaint for refund of prepayment charges along with compensation. OP filed reply and submitted that complainant accepted all terms & conditions of sanction letter and on receipt of his acceptance, loan was disbursed. It was further submitted that pre-payment charges were charged as per terms & conditions of the sanction letter and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint against which, complainant filed appeal and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeal, as directed aforesaid. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has not committed any deficiency in claiming pre-payment charges as per terms and conditions of sanction letter and learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal; hence, petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. Learned State Commission while disposing of appeal, observed in paragraph 11, as under: 1. This letter was signed by the complainant, his son and daughter-in-law. There is nothing, in this letter, regarding the prepayment charges. Even, on the overleaf of this document, no conditions are mentioned that, in case, the complainant wanted to pre-close the loan, he was required to pay prepayment charges. At page No.25 of the District Forum file, there is a document, containing the terms and conditions. This document is not signed by the complainant, his son and daughter-in-law. Even this document is not signed by any official of the bank. This is a unilateral document of the bank, and is not binding on the complainant. No doubt, as per clause-10 of this document, if loanee wanted to pre-close the entire loan, he was required to pay pre-closure charges @ 2.5%, on the principal amount outstanding at the time of pre-closure. Had these terms and conditions, been signed by the complainant, his son and daughter-in-law, loanees, it would have been said that the same were binding upon them. No help, therefore, can be drawn by the OP bank, from these terms and conditions, the same being unilateral. Under these circumstances, there was no agreement, between the parties, that in case of pre-closure of loan, loanees shall be liable to pay the pre-closure charges. The bank, therefore, could not charge the prepayment charges/foreclosure charges, at the time, the loan was prepaid by the complainant his son and daughter-in-law. The OP bank, thus, indulged into unfair trade practice, in charging prepayment charges in the sum of Rs.2,52,574.53. The District Forum gravely erred, in not properly interpreting R1. The complaint should have been allowed, but the District Forum, illegally dismissed the same. The order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside and the complainant is entitled to the refund of amount of Rs.2,52,574.53 illegally charged, from him, as pre-closure/pre-payment charges, by the OP 6. Learned State Commission directed for refund of pre-payment charges on the ground that terms & conditions regarding prepayment charges were not signed by the complainant, his son and daughter-in-law and had these terms been signed, it would have been binding upon them. Perusal of record reveals that personal information document containing photos of complainant, his son and daughter-in-law contains signatures of complainant, his son and daughter-in-law. It has specifically mentioned in personal information document: confirm that I have understood the points as mentioned below: 1. I understand that . My application may take a minimum of 2 working days to process once I have completed all requirements as required by the Bank. . Disbursal of the loan may take a minimum of 2 working days from the time of submission of all property and loan related documents as required by the Bank. . Linkage setup for Home Saver on system may take A minimum of 4 working days from the time of submission of all loan/account related documents as required by the Bank. . The actual interest rate applicable on my loan will be as mentioned in the sanction letter and will be governed as per terms and conditions therein. . The interest will be calculated on a Daily Reducing Balance and is charged with monthly rests. . If there is a review in my rate of interest during the tenure of the loan (for variable rate loan) will be advised of the new rate applicable. . Panel charges, part prepayment fee and pre-closure fee will be applicable as per the sanction letter. The Total fee to be paid by me is Rs.____. I understand that only in the event of my loan getting declined an amount of Rs.2,000/- (or the fee paid by me, whichever is lower) would be deducted and the balance amount refunded At the bottom of loan sanction letter which bears signatures of all the borrowers reads as under: lease sign this letter as a token of your acceptance of the terms and conditions mentioned above and overleaf and give us a signed copy of this letter. Please feel free to call us at our Phone banking help-line 39404444 On the overleaf of this sanction letter, Condition No. 10 runs as under: If you preclose the entire loan outstanding amount, you shall pay to the bank a pre-closure fee at the rate of 4% ad valorem on the principal outstanding amount for the first 3 years from the date of final disbursal. In case you wish to preclose after 3 years, there will be a fee of 2.5% on the principal outstanding at the time of such closure Article 2.8 of the Loan Agreement, which has been signed by all the borrowers, runs as under: re-payment SCB may, in its sole discretion and on such terms as of prepayment charges, minimum prepayment amount, etc., as it may prescribe, permit prepayment/acceleration in payment of EMIs at the request of the Borrower, subject that SCB may specify, from time to time, the minimum amount of prepayment/amounts pyable on account of acceleration of EMIs. In the event SCB permits any prepayment/acceleration, the repayment schedule for the Loan shall be amended/altered by SCB for giving effect to such prepayment/acceleration, and such amended/altered repayment schedule shall be binding upon the Borrower 7. Perusal of aforesaid documents clearly reveals that complainant along with his son and daughter-in-law agreed to pay for preclosure of the account and learned State Commission has wrongly come to the conclusion that complainant and his son and daughter in-law have not signed this Agreement. It has rightly been observed by the learned State Commission that had these terms and conditions been signed by the complainant, his son and daughter-in-law, it is binding on them. As these terms and conditions have been signed by the complainant, his son and daughter-in-law, the complainant was bound to pay preclosure charges as per Agreement and OP/petitioner has not committed any deficiency in demanding preclosure charges. Learned District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint and learned State Commission has committed error in allowing complaint and directing refund of preclosure charges along with compensation. 8. Documents and complaint clearly reveals that loan was taken by the complainant, his son and daughter-in-law, but complaint has been filed only by the complainant, while his son and daughter-in-law have not been arrayed as complainants and in absence of them, complaint was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. 9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 13.10.2011 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No.154 of 2011 Krishan Lal Juneja Vs. Standard Chartered Bank is set aside and order of District forum dismissing complaint is affirmed with no order as to costs.