AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS revision petition challenges the order dated 09.08.2010 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ?the State Commission?) against the order of the District Consumer Redressal Forum, South Mumbai (in short, ?the District Forum?) which was upheld by the State Commission. The revision petition is thus against the concurrent findings of two Forums below.
BOTH the Forums below have returned an unambiguous finding that the bank guarantee obtained by the respondent/ complainant from the petitioner Bank in favour of the ABN AMRO Bank (towards security for the deposit of Rs.2.5 crore paid by ABN AMRO Bank as security for the flat of the respondent/ complainant taken on "leave and licence" by the ABN AMRO Bank) did not contain any clause/provision to enable the petitioner Bank to charge a commission in case of premature revocation of the bank guarantee. The internal circular of the petitioner Bank that was sought to be relied upon was not communicated by the petitioner Bank to the respondent. In view of the foregoing discussion there is no reason for this Commission to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as there is no jurisdictional error, legal infirmity or material irregularity in the said order which upheld the order of the District Forum. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.