B.K. Taimni, Member—The Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission, where she had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant/Complainant had filed a complaint before the State Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and had claimed the following damages from the respondent:

3. The State Commission after seeing the relief sought and other material on record, by a short order directed to appellant to file a complaint before the District Forum by bringing the relief’s sought, within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us.

4. We heard the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and perused the material on record. Prima facie it appears that a loan of Rs. 1 crore was approved in favour of the appellant on 27.1.2005. The terms and conditions were also mentioned therein. It appears that what was proposed to be mortgaged as collateral with the respondent was already lying, in the form of security, with some other Bank. It is also not in dispute that there was already outstan