ORDER

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member - This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/OP against the impugned order dated 13.10.2011 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short, the State Commission ) in Appeal No. 154 of 2011 Krishan Lal Juneja v. Standard Chartered Bank by which, while allowing appeal, set aside order of dismissal of complaint passed by District Forum and directed OP to refund Rs. 2,52,574.53 along with compensation of Rs. 30,000.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Respondent along with his son and daughter-in-law obtained loan of Rs. 60,00,000 from OP/Petitioner. Subsequently, due to higher rate of interest, the complainant decided to make premature payment. OP agreed to the request of the complainant for premature payment, but vide letter dated 9.9.2010, OP demanded Rs. 2,52,574.53, as prepayment charges. Complainant under protest deposited the aforesaid amount along with due loan amount and closed the account. Complainant, alleging deficiency on the part of OP, filed complaint for refund of pre-payment charges along with compensation. OP filed reply and submitted that complainant accepted all terms and conditions of sanction letter and on receipt of his acceptance, loan was disbursed. It was further submitted that pre-payment charges were charged as per terms and conditions of the sanction letter and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint against which, complainant filed appeal and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeal, as directed aforesaid.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at admission stage and perused record.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has not committed any deficiency in claiming pre-payment charges as per terms and conditions of sanction letter and learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal; hence, petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

5. Learned State Commission while disposing of appeal, observed in paragraph 11, as under:

"11. This letter was signed by the complainant, his son and daughter-in-law. There is nothing, in this letter, regarding the pre-payment charges. Even, on the overleaf of this document, no conditions are mentioned that, in case, the complainant wanted to preclose the loan, he was required to pay pre-payment charges. At page No. 25 of the District Forum file, there is a document, containing the terms and conditions. This document is not signed by the complainant, his son and daughter-in-law. Even this document is not signed by any official of the bank. This is a unilateral document of the bank, and is not binding on the complainant. No doubt, as per Clause 10 of this document, if loanee wanted to pre-close the entire loan, he was required to pay pre-closure charges @ 2.5%, on the principal amount outstanding at the time of pre-closure. Had these terms and conditions, been signed by the complainant, his son and daughter-in-law, loanees, it would have been said that the same were binding upon them. No help, there-fore, can be drawn by the OP bank, from these terms and conditions, the same being unilateral. Under these circumstances, there was no agreement, between the parties, that in case of pre-closure of loan, loanees shall be liable to pay the pre-closure charges. The bank, therefore, could not charge the pre-payment charges/foreclosure charges, at the time, the loan was prepaid by the complainant, his son and daughter-in-law. The OP bank, thus, indulged into unfair trade practice, in charging pre-payment charges in the sum of Rs. 2,52,574.53. The District Forum gravely erred, in not properly interpreting R1. The complaint should have been allowed, but the District Forum,