JUSTICE J M MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER Surendra Kumar Sahoo, the complainant/petitioner had obtained a loan from Indusind Bank for a sum of Rs.3,80,000/-. He purchased a Mahindra Marshal Jeep for Rs.4,30,255/-. The complainant contributed amounts of Rs.54,700/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards insurance and registration. On 12.05.2004, unfortunately after eight days of the purchase of the vehicle, the vehicle met with an accident on 20.05.2004. Consequently, the complainant became irregular in paying the instalments and the opposite party/respondent seized the vehicle on 11.06.2006 without any notice. In all, the petitioner made defaults in four instalments. The vehicle was sold to a third party for a sum of Rs.2.00 lakh. Thereafter the Indusind Bank Opposite party/respondent issued a demand notice for a sum of Rs.1,92,067.53 paise the residue loan. 2. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuttack (in short, he District Forum. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and the directed the OP no. 1 to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and harassment, to refund the sum of Rs.54,700/- towards down payment made by the complainant, further Rs.10,000/- towards registration charges, insurance charges and Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of litigation. 3. However, the State Commission in appeal set aside the order passed by the District Forum and based its decision on the Apex Court authority in case of anaging Director, Orix Auto Finance (India) Limited vs Shri Jagmandar Singh and Another (2006) 1 SCC 708. In the said judgment, it was stated that the financier can repossess the vehicle as agreement permits the financier to take the possession of the finance vehicle. 4. In the written statement it was specifically mentioned, greement-cum-Hypothecation Agreement at Clause clearly provides that the monthly instalment are to be paid regularly on monthly basis and any delay or default in paying the monthly instalment is a breach in the terms and conditions of the Agreement and clause gives the opposite party a legal right to repossess the vehicle to secure the loan payment in the event of default and also to sell the asset to secure the loan amount 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Supreme Court has held that no force can be used for repossessing the vehicle and vehicle should be obtained as permitted by law. 6. This ground does not enure in favour of the petitioner. As per the agreement there was no need to give the prior notice. The petitioner waddled out of his commitments and indisputably he was the defaulter. The moment he did not pay the instalment it gives the legal right to the financier to repossess the vehicle. 7. The Apex Court in a recent judgment reported in Suryapalsingh vs Siddha V inayak Motors & Anr. III (2012) CPJ 4 (SC) has held as under: nder the Hire Purchase agreement, it is the financier who is the owner of the vehicle and the person who takes the loan retain the vehicle only as a bailee/trustee, therefore, taking possession of the vehicle on the ground of non-payment of instalment has always been upheld to be a legal right of the financier. The Court vide its judgment in Trilok Singh and Ors. vs Satya Deo Tripathi, AIR 1979 SC 850, has categorically held that under the Hire Purchase Agreement, the financer is the real owner of the vehicle, therefore, there cannot be any allegation against him for having the possession of the vehicle. This view was again reiterated in K A Mathai @ Babu @ Anr. Vs Kora Bibbikutty @ Anr., 1996 (7) SCC 212; Jagdish Chandra Nijhawan vs S K Saraf, IX (1998) SLT 477 IV (1998) CCR 118 (SC) 1999 (1) SCC 119; Charanjit Singh Chadha & Ors. vs Sudhir Mehra, VI (2001) SLT 883 III (2001) CCR 232 (SC) 2001 (7) SCC 417, following the earlier judgment of this court in Sundaram Finance Ltd., vs The State of Kerala and Anr., AIR 1966 SC 1178; Smt Lalmuni Devi vs State of Bihar and Ors., I (2001) SLT 26-I (2001) CCR 9 (SC) 2001 (2) SCC 17 and Balwinder Singh vs Assistant Commissioner, V (20050 SLT 195 III (2005) CCR 8 (SC) CCE 2005 (4 ) SCC 146 6. This Commission in a recent judgment presided over by Honle Justice Ashok Bhan in the case of urendra Kumar Agarwal vs TELCO Finance Limited and Anr [ (II (2010) CPJ 163 (NC) ] decided on 11.03.2010 has held as under: t is not disputed before is that the petitioner had raised a loan of Rs.6,15,000/- to purchase the truck. No statement of account showing repaying of loan instalments has been filed by the petitioner. It was admitted before the State Commission that the petitioner had defaulted several times in making the payment on the dates when it was due. Further it is not disputed that as per Hire Purchase Agreement the financier was authorised to repossess the vehicle in case of default in repayment of loan instalments. Supreme Court of India in Managing Director Orix Auto Finance (India) Limited Case (supra) has held that the financier can repossess the vehicle if the agreement permits the financier to take possession of the financed vehicle. There is nothing to show that the vehicle was repossessed forcibly. Mere fact that possession was taken by the respondents cannot be the ground to contend that the hirer is prejudiced. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission 7. In the light of the above discussion, the revision petition is dismissed.