GURJEET SINGH vs BANK OF PUNJAB LTD

-THE challenge in these revision petitions is to the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh dated 13. 3. 2008. We have heard the Counsel for the Petitioners at length. One of the important conditions of the Bank Guarantee, in question, reads as under: "notwithstanding anything hereinbefore containing the Bank agrees that this guarantee shall remain in full force for a period of three years from the date of this guarantee deed including the extended period, if any, and that it shall continue to be in force till the date all development works in the colony have been completed and a completion certificate in respect thereof has been issued by the concerned authority in accordance with the conditions of licence and in accordance with the provisions of the act and rules made thereunder and the competent authority accordingly discharges the guarantee and unless a demand or action to enforce any claim under this guarantee is made or taken against the Bank within a period of three months from the date of such discharges, the bank shall stand discharged of all liabilities thereunder: (provided, however, that one-fifth of the Bank guarantee shall be kept unreleased to ensure that the upkeep and maintenance of the colony for a period of five years from the date of issue of the completion certificate or till such time the promoter is relieved of the responsibilities in this behalf by the State Commission, or by the local authority, whichever is earlier ). "

RULES 22 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulations Act, 1995 is to the following effect: "after the layout and the development works in a colony have been completed, and a completion certificate in respect thereof has been issued, the competent authority may, on an application in this behalf from the promoter, release within a period of three months of the date of application, the bank guarantee furnished by the promoter after adjusting the amount incurred by the competent authority under Sub-section (13) of Section 5. "

Keeping in view these conditions and important provisions of law, the State Commission was fully justified in taking the view that there was no deficiency on the part of the respondent-Bank or PUDA in not discharging the FDRs, in question, which were given as counter guarantee to the Bank guarantee furnished by the Bank for Balkar Singh in favour of PUDA. The impugned order cannot be faulted on any ground. However, we would like to observe that the transaction in this case relating to furnish of Bank guarantee was for a purely commercial purpose within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, strictly speaking, Petitioners could not have invoked the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora for redressal of their grievance. It may perhaps be possible for the petitioners to seek their remedy through Civil Court or any other appropriate Forum in accordance with law. With these observations, these revision petitions are dismissed. Revision Petitions dismissed.