Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 27.09.2011 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in appeal no. 2211/2006. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the HDFC Bank Ltd. against the order dated 26.07.2006 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar in complaint No. 866 / 2004 by which order the District Forum allowed the Complaint thereby directing the Bank to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant holding deficiency in service on the part of the respondent by misrepresenting to the complainant that the model of the auctioned car was of the year 2003 as in fact it was found that the car was of the 2002 model. In appeal the State Commission, however, reversed the said finding and dismissed the complaint primarily on the ground that the complainant had purchased the vehicle on s is where isbasis in an open auction and, therefore, there cannot be any grievance. 2. We have heard the petitioner in person but did not have the advantage of hearing the say of the respondent bank despite due service of notice through registered AD post. We, therefore, presume that respondent does not want to defend these proceedings. The facts which led to the filing of the complaint are amply noted in the orders of the Fora below and need no repetition at our end. The Petitioner would assail the order of the State Commission and support the order of the District Forum on the strength of certificate / letter dated 10.09.2004 issued by the respondent Bank in which there is a clear cut mention that the car which was auctioned to the petitioner was of the model 2003, whereas ample evidence is available on record to show that the car was found to be of 2002 model. This was a clear misrepresentation on the part of the respondent bank and will be deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice. The State Commission fell into an error by setting aside the well-reasoned order passed by the District Forum which has taken into account all relevant factors and evidence and material on record. The impugned order is legally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. In the result the revision petition is allowed. Order passed by the District Forum is restored and affirmed as we feel that even the compensation awarded by the District Forum having regard to the nature and extent of the deficiency in service is quite just and reasonable. The revision petition stands disposed off in above terms.