We have heard learned counsel for the appellants.

          The appeal is directed against the order dated 28.12.2010 rendered by the State Commission, Orissa.  By that order, the State Commission directed the appellants to relieve the hypothecated vehicle bearing registration No. LPT-2518/OR-09-J-4277 in favour of the respondent and payment of the amount due i.e. Rs. 1,16,864/- within a period of seven days.

          Perusal of the impugned order shows that the appellant had not appeared on the date of hearing.  It appears that the Advocate for the appellants had agreed to appear.  Counsel for the appellants now says that it is an error on the part of the concerned counsel.  The impugned order shows that notices were issued by speed post with acknowledgment and, therefore, presumption was drawn that notices were duly served.  The consumer complaint was directed to be listed for hearing because none had appeared in spite of service of notice.  The State Commission observed “……. such non-appearance appears to be intentional on the part of the opposite parties ……...”.  It was thereafter that the State Commission proceeded to decide the complaint. 

          Respondent/complainant produced a letter dated 14.12.2010 issued by the appellants addressed to the complainant and his guarantor.  It is worthy to be noted that the letter dated 14.12.2010 was issued hardly about 13 days prior to the impugned order and copy of that letter is not placed on record of this Commission. Learned counsel seeks time to produce copy of that letter on record. We may assume that the observations of the State Commission regarding contents of the said letter are true and correct.  What appears is that if in the letter dated 14.12.2010, the due amount was shown as Rs. 1,16,864/-, as against this, now the contention of the appellants is that it was much more i.e. Rs. 2.47 lakhs.  It is difficult to reconcile the stand now adopted by the appellants.

          Learned counsel for the appellants states that in compliance of the order of the State Commission, on depositing of the said amount of         Rs. 1,16,864/- by the respondent, the vehicle has been released in his favour.  The respondent has not appeared in the proceedings  before the State Commission. 

          The only question raised by the appellant before the State Commission is about the mis-calculation of the amount due. It appears that the calculation now is being made on the basis of alleged penal interest which was liable to be charged.  We are of the opinion that the appellants cannot be permitted to deviate from the communication dated 14.12.2010 which is placed on record of the State Commission and hence, cannot demand more than what is stated to be the due amount.  It is note worthy that even in the letter dated 07.06.2010, the due amount was shown as Rs. 1,12,543/- and nothing more.  Under these circumstances, there is no substantial error committed by the State Commission while allowing the complaint in terms of the impugned order.  No inference is called for.  The appeal is dismissed. 

          The statutory amount deposited by the appellant be released in favour of the appellant along with interest accrued thereon, if any, by the Registry.