B. S. Yadav, J. ( 1 ) THIS facts relating to this appeal are that the present appellant-Social Welfare Housing (1) Ltd. having its branch office at Vashi in New Bombay is a financing company. It issued an advertisement showing that it was prepared to Finance persons who are in need to purchase houses. Acting on that representation, the complainant, Mr. Anil Kumar Mattey (who is respondent herein) approached the appellant for a loan of Rs. 2,17,000. 00 under a Housing Scheme. It is not necessary to dwell upon the procedure or formalities about the advance of the loan. Suffice it to say that the complainant was advanced Rs. l,16,000. 00 towards the loan for the purchase of a house. Remaining installment by means of a cheque for Rs. l,01,000. 00 was issued by the company but the bank did not honour the cheque. The company did not advance the remaining amount i. e. Rs. l,01,000. 00 to the complainant. He, therefore, filed the complaint before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bombay alleging deficiency in the rendering of the service by the company. He prayed for a direction requiring the company to pay to him the balance amount of Rs. l,01,000. 00 plus Rs. 40,000. 00 which he bad suffered on account of loss as he had to pay interest to the persons from whom he borrowed money plus Rs. 50,000. 00 as compensation. ( 2 ) THE appellant-company did not appear before the State Commission in spite of notices. In support of his case the complainant filed his affidavit along with a copy of a letter dated 12th December, 1991 addressed to the company. After going through the allegations of the complainant, the State Commission came to the conclusion that the company was guilty of unfair trade practice inasmuch as the written representations made to the complainant were false and it did not adhere to the schedule of payment of the loan to the complainant despite the fact that the complainant had fulfilled all the necessary formalities to get the loan. It was also held that the complainant had hired services of the company for financing his project of construction of a house. The State Commission directed the opposite parties (i. e. the company, its branch office and its Managing Director and Director) jointly and severally to release the balance amount of Rs. It was also held that the complainant had hired services of the company for financing his project of construction of a house. The State Commission directed the opposite parties (i. e. the company, its branch office and its Managing Director and Director) jointly and severally to release the balance amount of Rs. l,01,000/ - towards the loan to the complainant and to pay him Rs. 40,000. 00 for loss of interest. The complainant s claim for compensation was disallowed on the ground that no material had been placed on the record to prove the quantum of compensation. Feeling aggrieved of that order the company has come before us in appeal. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the direction issued by the State Commission could not have been issued under Section 14 (l) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. He argued that in view of that provision if a forum constituted under the Act is satisfied that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the service arc proved, the forum can only issue an order to the opposite party directing him: "to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party" ( 4 ) WE are of the opinion that the said argument has force. In view of Clause (3) of Section 14 (1) of the Act, if a consumer suffers any loss or injury on account of any deficiency in the rendering of service by the opposite party, he can only be allowed a certain sum of money as compensation. In the prevent case, the complainant has not been awarded any. compensation by the State Commission. On the other band, certain reliefs have been granted to the complainant which could not be granted under the Act. Therefore, we have no other option but to set aside the order of the State Commission. ( 5 ) THE complainant has not filed any appeal against the order of the State Commission disallowing compensation to him. Therefore, we have also no option but to dismiss his complaint. ( 6 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, we accept the present appeal, set aside the impugned order of the State Comnussion and dismiss the complaint tiled by the respondent-claiment. Therefore, we have also no option but to dismiss his complaint. ( 6 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, we accept the present appeal, set aside the impugned order of the State Comnussion and dismiss the complaint tiled by the respondent-claiment. In the circumstances of this case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.