Challenge in these proceedings purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is to the order dated 31.03.2010 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, he State Commission in first appeal No. 307 of 2009. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the petitioner herein against the order dated -3- 18.03.2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Purba Medinipur in complaint case No. 24 of 2008, by which the District Consumer Forum had allowed the complaint filed by the complainant, Syed Alif Ali and has directed the petitioner-finance company to disburse the sanctioned loan of Rs.75,000/-. In appeal, the State Commission though has held that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner-financer in refusing to issue a draft in the name of a third person, namely, Nakimuddin but still for the reasons not easy to understand has upheld the finding and order of the District Consumer Forum and has confirmed the direction given by the District Consumer Forum to the petitioner with regard to the disbursal of the amount of sanctioned loan. We have heard Mr. Amit Singh, learned counsel representing the petitioner but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondents though respondent No. 1 was duly served with the notice issued to him as well as a sum of Rs. 3000/- has been remitted to him to meet his travel and allied expenses in connection with the present proceedings. -4- Learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that the petitioner-finance company cannot be said to have committed any deficiency in service in the whole transaction. Not disputing the factual position that they had initially sanctioned a loan of Rs.75,000/-, which could not be disbursed to the complainant for the reason that the complainant had already got the vehicle by paying the entire consideration of the vehicle by arranging loan from a private party namely, Nakimudin, we are in perfect agreement with his submission because sanction of loan on the basis of factual position is one thing than its disbursement due to subsequent change of circumstances. In the case in hand, the complainant was himself to be blamed for not availing the facility which was agreed to be given by the petitioner-finance company and therefore, the petitioner-finance company cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service. Once we held so, the petitioner-company could not be asked to disburse the loan to the complainant or to any other person. In our view, the orders passed by the fora below are legally unsustainable and deserve to be set aside. -5- In the result, the revision petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and the direction given by the fora below is set aside. No order as to costs in these proceedings.