ORDER

Sudip Ahluwalia, Member—This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner No.1/Opposite Party No.1 challenging the impugned Order dated 24.04.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai in RBT/A/15/874. Vide such Order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal while upholding the order dated 22.08.2014 passed by the District Consumer Complaint Redressal Forum, Thane in Consumer Complaint No. 331/2008.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was in need of a house and the Opposite Party No. 3 was willing to sell his Flat No. 202, New Neel Angar Housing Society, Nallasopara having an area of 414 sq. ft. Consequently, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was decided as the consideration for the flat and a registered agreement was executed on 12.03.2007. At the time of entering into the Agreement, the Complainant paid Rs.87,000/- to Opposite Party No.3 and the balance Rs.3,13,000/- was to be paid by acquiring a loan from the bank, which was agreed by both the above stated parties.

3. It was averred by the Complainant that he had approached Opposite Party No. 1 before execution and registration of the Agreement, with the available documents, to acquire a loan of Rs.3,13,000/- and the Opposite Party No. 1 informed the Complainant that the flat was required to be mortgaged and for that purpose, the Agreement should be registered, only after which the loan amount could be disbursed. On the basis of the available documents submitted by the Complainant, a pre Sanction Letter dated 08.02.2007 was issued to the Complainant. Based on the pre Sanction Letter, the Complainant executed the Agreement for sale, and paid the margin amount of Rs.87,000/- to the Opposite Party. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party no.1 instructed the Complainant to approach Opposite Party No.2 for further processing of the loan. The Complainant consequently submitted the Application form along with all the documents to the Opposite Party No.2, and thereafter on scrutiny of all the documents, the loan was sanctioned vide Approval Letter dated 12.04.2007. It was further averred that the Complainant was informed that the amount shall be disbursed in the name of Opposite Party No. 3. It was further claimed that the Complainant had also paid the processing fees and other necessary expenses and amount required for mortgage of flat to the Opposite Party No.2.

4. Further, the case of Complainant was that he approached Opposite Party No.4 for transfer of flat in his favour of and accordingly the Opposite Party No. 4 issued a No-objection Certificate to him and transferred the share certificate in his favour, which was also further submitted to Opposite Party No. 2. However, even after compliance of entire process for disbursement of loan amount, the Opposite Party No. 2 had avoided and failed to issue the cheque of disbursed loan till the date of Complaint. On enquiry, it was informed to the Complainant that his file was missing, and the loan would be disbursed as soon as the file is found. Hence, the Complaint was filed by the Complainant before the District Forum claiming the disbursed loan amount and other ancillary reliefs.

5. The Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 appeared before the District Forum and resisted the Complaint by denying the material allegations made therein and thereby denying deficiency in service on their part. It was contended by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 that the No Objection Certificate of the Society, produced by the Complainant, was false and fabricated as it did not bear signatures of the President/ Secretary of the Society which was informed to them by the Opposite Party No. 4. It was also claimed that the Opposite Party No.3 was not authorized to execute the Agreement for sale in respect of the flat. Hence, it was contended that the title of flat was not clear and the loan could not be given to the Complainant.

6. The Opposite Party No. 3 had separately contended that the com