This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 3.10.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 1692 of 2011 Ram Pal Singh Vs. General Manager Sri Ram Transport & Ors. by which appeal was dismissed and order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner obtained loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from OP/respondent for purchasing truck for a sum of Rs. 6,11,000/-. This loan was to be repaid in 54 instalments. Due to illness of father of the complainant, loan instalments could not be paid and muscle persons of OP snatched truck and OP sold it for Rs.3,11,500/- and further raised demand of Rs.2,71,832/- from the complainant and thus committed deficiency in selling truck at very low price and further demanding money, hence, filed complaint for damages. OP contested the complaint and submitted that complainant does not fall within purview of consumer as per loan-cum-hypothecation Agreement. Vehicle was repossessed and sold as per terms and conditions of agreement and notice for recovery is still pending before Arbitrator and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint against which appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed by impugned order, hence, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order passed by learned State Commission is non-speaking order and petitioner fall within purview of consumer as he obtained loan from the respondent, hence, petition be accepted and impugned order be set aside and matter be remanded back to the learned State Commission for passing speaking order. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the OP submitted that orders passed by learned State Commission and District Forum are in accordance with settled law which does not call for any interference, hence, petition be dismissed. 5. It is admitted case of parties that complainant purchased truck on finance provided by OP and parties entered into hypothecated agreement and this amount was to be paid by the complainant in instalments. Complainant failed to pay instalments and in such circumstances, vehicle was repossessed by the OP and after notice vehicle was sold. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission has not passed speaking order, hence, matter may be remanded back. It is true that learned State Commission has not passed speaking order and learned State Commission ought to have passed speaking order after dealing with arguments placed by Counsel for the appellant but only on this count there is no justification to remand the matter if there is no merit in the complaint at all. 7. Learned District Forum after referring many citations of this Commission held that complainant does not fall within purview of consumer and repossessing vehicle under the terms and conditions of hire purchase agreement cannot be considered as any negligence on the part of OP. When complainant failed to pay instalments it was within the domain of OP to repossess vehicle and dispose it as per agreement and law. Similar complainant has been dismissed in IV (2012) CPJ 93 (NC) Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chaman Lal after referring judgment of Honle Supreme Court reported in II (2012) CPJ 8 (SC) Suryapal Singh Vs. Siddha Vinayak Motors & Anr. I do not find any infirmity in the order of District Forum which has been upheld by learned State Commission and in such circumstances, I am not inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the learned State Commission only on the ground that order is not speaking order. 8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to cost.