IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH... PRESIDENT Revision Petition No.48 of 2025 (Originally taken as R.P. Sr. No.1503 of 2024)

(Against the Order, dated 23.05.2024 passed in C.C. No.70 of 2023 on the file of the DCDRC, Kanchipuram District @ Chengalpattu)

Orders pronounced on: 15.12.2025 Union Bank, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Tambaram Branch, No.149, Velachery Main Road, East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059. .. Revision Petitioner / 1^st Opposite party.

Vs.

1. Selvi. M. Vembarasi, D/o. Madhivanan, No.2/276, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Ramachandrapuram, Thirumayam, Pudukottai District – 622 505. .. 1^st Respondent / Complainant.

2. M/s. Doris (India) Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Manager, No.86, Vanagaram- Ambattur Road, Ayanambakkam, Chennai – 600 095. .. 2^nd Respondent / 2^nd Opposite party.

For Revision Petitioner/1^st Opposite party : M/s. T. Sundaranathan For 1st Respondent / Complainant : M/s. K. Srinivasan For 2^nd Respondent / 2^nd Opposite party : M/s. S. Elambharathi Amicus Curiae : M/s. V. Balaji, Mr. V. Shankar &

Mr. K. Kumaran This Revision Petition came up for final hearing on

25.11.2025 and, after hearing the arguments of the learned Counsels for both sides and Amicus Curiae and on perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Commission passes the following:-

ORDER

R.Subbiah, J. (President)

The Revision Petitioner herein/Union Bank, Chennai-50, is Opposite Party No.1 in C.C. No.70 of 2023 filed by Respondent No.1 herein by name Vembarasi as complainant before the DCDRC – Chengalpattu, alleging that, in the course of pursuing self-employment, she had approached the Bank for sanction of loan to purchase a Wall Putty Mixing Machine from Respondent No.2 herein/Opposite Party No.2 and, despite her having duly deposited the requisite contributory margin money, the Bank failed to release the final phase/remaining loan amount of Rs.1,25,000/-, as a result of which, although a substantial portion of the loan had been availed, the machinery could not be installed, thereby causing serious hardship and disrupting her livelihood.

The District Commission passed a final order, dated

23.05.2024, directing the Bank to disburse the balance loan amount of Rs. 1.25 lakh to the manufacturer, along with interest, and simultaneously directing the manufacturer in turn to deliver the machinery upon receipt of the funds. In addition, acknowledging the mental and emotional distress suffered by the complainant, the bank was directed to pay Rs. 20 lakh as compensation, besides a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Now, rather than filing an appeal, the Bank has preferred the present revision before this Commission, assailing the impugned final order, leading to a broader question regarding the scope and limits of revision under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (in short CP Act, 2019) and its interaction with the statutory right of appeal. With the registry raising a preliminary objection against the Revision, crystallizing an issue whether revisional jurisdiction of the State Commission can be invoked to assail a final order passed on merits by the District Commission, notwithstanding the availability of a full- fledged appellate remedy capable of examining every contention sought to be urged, the matter is now placed/heard on maintainability.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits introductorily that the present petition is perfectly maintainable under Section 47(1)(b) of the CP Act, 2019, notwithstanding the existence of an appellate remedy. In this regard, his starting point of the argument is that the Act does not obviously impose a mandatory obligation upon an aggrieved party to file an appeal, by default, in all circumstances, since Section 41 merely confers a right of appeal and it does not compel its invocation. Where the legislature intends to impose a mandatory appellate requirement,