Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. In this case the Complainant Shri Ramanujlal Yadav had entered into an agreement with K.G.N. Herbal Pvt. Ltd., Respondent no.2, Mr. Feroz Khan, Respondent No.3 and Mr. Pranav, Respondent no.4 for purchase of saplings of Stevia and Coleus and for purchasing the aforesaid saplings the Complainant had also obtained finance from the Petitioner. The saplings which were provided by Respondents nos. 2 to 4 were sub-standard, hence could not properly grow. Respondent provided 19,000 less saplings, after being fully paid by the petitioner. Complainant filed a complainant in the District Forum alleging deficiency in service against the petitioner Bank that without his instructions, a lump sum payment has been made to Respondent no.2 to 4 and that seeds supplied by them were sub- standard . The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner and Respondents nos.2 to 4 to pay jointly and severally Rs.2,15,000/- alongwith interest from 1.7.2005 at the rate at which the Bank had charged on the loan amount. It was also directed Respondents nos.2 to 4 to directly pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.1,98,000/- to the Complainant. In case of default, all the parties to pay 10% p.a. interest on the amount of Rs.2,15,000/- and the interest accruing thereon jointly and severally from the date of default alongwith Rs.1000/- towards litigation expenses jointly and severally to the Complainant. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Petitioner filed appeal in the State Commission, Raipur, Chhattisgarh and contended that the payment to the supplier i.e. Respondents nos.2 to 4 was made as per MOU and sanction letter which clearly stipulates that payment will be made to the suppliers. Learned Counsel also referred to their letter dated 29.6.2005 which has noted as under :- Payment terms – 100% in advance Delivery Mode - Delivery will be made within 15 days of the payment of for supply of seed. Cost of the planting material are as under :- 1. Stevia 5.00 per plant 2. Coleus Forskohlii 0.50/- per plant We have gone through the order of the State Commission. The State Commission modified the order of the District Forum directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to Respondent no.1 as compensation within a period of one month from the date of the order failing which interest @ 9% shall be payable alognwith cost of Rs.1000/- The liability of Respondents nos. 2 to 4 would continue as per order of the District Forum. After hearing learned Counsel for the Petitioner and considering the orders of the fora below, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of the State Commission in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Firstly, MOU was between Complainant/Respondent No.1 and Respondents nos.2 to 4. Petitioner had nothing to do with the aforesaid MOU. The entire 100% payment was made to Respondents Nos.2 to 4 without any specific instruction from Respondent no.1/Complainant. Shri S.L. Purohit, the then Manager of the Petitioner Bank admitted that the amount was paid to the suppliers, i.e., Respondents nos.2 to 4 without any instruction from the Complainant/Respondent no.1 and that demand draft was prepared on the basis of quotation handed over by the Complainant. Further he also admitted that there was no satisfaction report on record to show that the Complainant had received saplings and was satisfied with the same. By making 100% payment, the Bank had assumed that 100% supply of the saplings would be given to respondent no.1 and also assumed supplied by Respondents Nos.2 to 4 are not defective. Therefore, he had no option but to pay the entire loan amount without any whisper only because of his status of not having equal bargaining power vis-à-vis the Petitioner. Bank normally stipulates many conditions regarding instalments and various terms in their loan contract which were left blank. In our view, the State Commission rightly came to the conclusion that the Petitioner on their own admission have been deficient in service by paying 100% payment to Respondents nos.2 to 4 without proper instructions. Surprisingly, Respondents nos.2 to 4 have not even filed any appeal before the State Commission. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.