JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Kisan, the complainant/petitioner, purchased a Tractor through Om Jai Trading Company, respondent No.2/OP No.2, whereas the Tractor was financed by ICICI Bank, respondent No.1/OP1 for an amount of Rs.3,70,000/-. It was agreed that EMI shall be payable at every six months of the amount of Rs.45,000/-. The above said transaction took place on 28.08.2006. The petitioner deposited Rs.30,443/- on 26.02.2007, Rs. 44,500/- on 16.10.2007 and Rs. 500/- on 31.10.2007. 2. In the meantime, the Government implemented the Scheme for improving the condition of the farmers, who were under the burden of the huge loan to exempt some part of the loan. Pursuant to that Scheme, the parties executed a Promissory Note to that effect and as such, a loan of Rs.20,000/- was waived by the Opp.party No.1 /respondent No.1. The payment schedule was also re-cycled. In that Schedule, the petitioner was to deposit Rs.31,000/- and further agreed that on the next due dates, i.e. 30.09.2008, 31.03.2009 and 30.06.2009, he would deposit the remaining installments and it was also agreed that in case he fails to deposit the installments, he would not be considered for the benefit of exemption of loan amount. 3. As the petitioner failed to deposit the next installment, therefore, his vehicle was allegedly, illegally seized. The complainant approached respondent No.1 but it did not respond to his requests. The complainant was informed that after payment of full amount, his vehicle would be released. 4. Thereafter, the complainant approached the District Forum on the ground of unfair trade practice committed by respondent No.1. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. The State Commission dismissed the appeal. 5. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner at the time of admission of this revision petition. The counsel vehemently argued that the complainant was dispossessed of the vehicle illegally without giving any notice or intimation to him. 6. These arguments carry no conviction. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not pick up a conflict with the fact that the petitioner is a defaulter. He admitted that the complainant did not pay the next installment. He contended that for not paying a single installment, the vehicle should not have been forcibly taken. The OP has produced before the District Forum a letter signed by the complainant wherein he surrendered the Tractor to respondent No.1, of his own accord. He also prayed to the OP1 that the said Tractor be sold and the amount recovered from that sale should be deposited in his loan account. This letter written by the complainant itself clearly goes to show that he had surrendered the vehicle of his own accord. The learned counsel for the complainant did not dispute this letter. He, however, argued that this letter was obtained forcibly. Further, he could not show that any evidence was led in this context. Above all, the District Forum, while granting interim relief, directed the complainant to deposit the defaulted premiums but the complainant did not do the needful. The petitioner also did not deposit the three installments as agreed in the re-payment schedule. The petitioner wants to have the benefit of both the worlds. Admittedly, he waddled out of the commitments and did not pay the installments; on the other hand, he wants to have the vehicle without paying the installments and falsely alleges that it is unfair trade practice. Consequently, the revision petition is lame of strength and, therefore, the same is dismissed at the time of admission.