Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondents / complainants had filed separate complaints alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent(s) / complainant(s) had obtained loans from different Banks for purchase of different houses in the city of Bharuch, Gujarat. It is the petitioner Bank, who contacted the respondents / complainants and gave them certain promises about interest rate as also sanctioning loan at favourable terms, if loans already sanctioned by the different banks were paid off, and fresh loans are obtained from the Petitioner Bank. The respondents / complaints seeing favourable situation agreed with the proposition and closed the account(s) with the different banks from whom they had obtained loans earlier and amounts were paid from the amount sanctioned, approved and released by the petitioner Bank. The issue is with regard to the rate of interest and transfer fee to be charged by the Petitioner Bank on the loans advanced to the complainants. It was the case of the complainants that the petitioner had promised, through an offer letter dated 28.04.06, that rate of interest will be 8.10% p.a. for 15 years but they have decided to charge interest @8.85% p.a. which is an unfair trade practice and contrary to the offer made. When the matter was taken up with the petitioner and matter was not getting sorted out, separate complaints were filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties and relying upon the offer letter allowed the complaints in following terms:- “The Complaint no. 22/07 to 35/07, 42/07 to 46/07, 11/08 to 42/08 and 44/08 to 54/08 of the above applicants is partially maintained and the respondent bank is ordered to charge rate of interest of 8.10% for 15 years on the loan amount from the applicants and to pay compensation of Rs.1500/- (Rupees fifteen Hundred only) as expenses. With reference to above order the application for temporary relief by the applicant is ordered to be disposed off. Copy of this order to be kept in all the cases.” Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner Bank filed separate appeals before the State Commission, who after relying upon the documents, dismissed the appeals in following terms:- “(1) All the above Appeals no. 901/08 to 944/08 and 946/08 to 959/08 is hereby dismissed and as discussed above with regard to the order of the complaint, all the orders remain as it is. (2) Looking to the facts and circumstances, there is no order as to cost. (3) As per the submission on behalf of Appellant in each Appeal Rs.3,500/- has been deposited for which they are entitled to get the same and therefore, the Registry is ordered to verify the same and if any interest is received on the amount, the entire amount. The cheque in favour of the appellant be handed over to their Advocate Mr. H.J. Thakker.” Aggrieved by this order these revision petitions have been filed before us. Since the issue involved in all these revision petitions is same, we go on to dispose off all these revision petitions through a common order. We heard the Ld. Counsel for both the parties at considerable length as also perused the material on record. There is no disputing the fact that the petitioner had agreed vide its letter dated 28.04.06 as “a very special case” to consider a rate of interest @8.10% p.a. for a period of 15 years for housing loans to employees of GACL, i.e., the complainants, subject to the following terms:- “1. The special rate shall be applicable only if we get a minimum business of Rs.100 L from the group. 2. The special rate shall be applicable only for loans sanctioned before 31.05.2006. 3. Branch to submit a report by 31.5.2006 on the business generated by this special offer. 4. Normal processing fees should be charged. 5. All precautions / instructions with regard to take over of loans from other banks shall be complied with. 6. All other terms and conditions of the Scheme shall be complied with.” It is not in dispute that these terms were abide by the complainants in the sense that a business of more than Rs.3crore was generated for the Petitioner Bank, and loan was sanctioned on 29.05.06, i.e., 2 days before the time limit prescribed in the offer letter. Since this offer letter has been accepted by the respondents and acted in these terms, it would also amount to a contract between the parties. It is case of the Counsel for the petitioner that in the agreement signed between the parties, there was a clause to vary the rate of interest. In our view, having made the offer and having acted accordingly, the terms in agreement executed between the parties could not have been different. In any case, as per law of interpretation and as per well-settled proposition of jurisprudence, the material brought on record should be read in a harmonious and constructive / consecutive manner. In this case, the offer letter could not be separated from the agreement entered between the parties. The offer letter will continue to be a part, and continuation / culminating in the signing of the, agreement between the parties. The terms of the agreement could not have been detrimental to the complainants and at variance with the offer letter made by the petitioner in order to attract business. In the aforementioned circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order passed by both the lower fora calling for interference under revisional jurisdiction under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. These revision petitions are devoid of merit. Dismissed. | 
