JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 5 days delay in filing the present revision petition is condoned. ..2.. 2. Through this revision petition, the original complainant, M/s. Parveen Industries seeks to assail the order dated 06.11.09 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 3065/07. By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the appeal filed by the Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) against the order dated 14.09.07 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon by which the said forum had partly allowed the complaint filed by the petitioner herein and has directed the opposite party, SIDBI to refund amount of Rs.46,284/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till actual payment was made, besides awarding Rs.20,000/- as damages and Rs.2,000/- on account of litigation expenses. We have heard Mr. T.C. Gupta, learned counsel representing the petitioner and have considered his submissions. The only ground on which the impugned order is sought to be assailed, is that the deficiency in the part of the opposite party, SIDBI had become writ large in not disbursing the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.35 lakh, ..3.. more particularly, so when the Petitioner had completed all the requisite formalities which were required for sanction and disbursement of the loan. The facts and circumstances as to why after issuing the letter of intent for having agreed to sanction a loan of Rs.35 lakh, it was not finally sanctioned and disbursed, have been amply noted down by the State Commission in the impugned order. One of the reasons that why the letter of intent not realized on ground, was that after issuing of letter of intent, there was change in the constitution of the applicant inasmuch as the application for loan was made in the name of M/s Parveen Industries, a sole proprietorship concern of Smt. Bhagwati Verma but afterwards, it would appear, that Smt. Bhagwati Verma entered into a partnership with her son, Praveen Kumar Verma for the purpose of running the unit smoothly. As the plot which was sought to be hypothecated as collateral security for the intended loan, stood in the name of Smt. Bhagwati Verma, the opposite party, SIDBI asked to the applicant/complainant to comply with certain other formalities more particularly to get the newly constituted firm registered with the District Industries Centre, IDC, Gurgaon which the applicant conveniently avoided to do. We are, therefore, of the considered ..4.. opinion that it was due to the own fault and deficiency of the complainant herself that letter of intent issued by the SIDBI could not be realized. As regards the refund of the amount deposited by the complainant as 1% of loan amount for upfront charges and service charges amounting to Rs.39,284/- and some more amounts, the terms and conditions of sanction of loan would show that these were non-refundable amounts and were meant to be utilized for processing the application by investigation etc. Once, the SIDBI has performed all its obligations it cannot be said that it has been deficient in giving service to the applicants. The State Commission was justified in correcting the erroneous order of the District Forum which was not based on correct and appropriate appreciation of the facts and circumstances as also the terms of the agreement. We find no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction u/s 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.