Petitioner/complainant purchased a Scorpio vehicle after availing a loan of Rs.5,10,000/- from the respondent bank.  The loan was to be repaid in 48 equal installments of Rs.13,500/- per month.  Petitioner defaulted in making the payment.  Respondent bank repossessed the vehicle after notice to the local Police Station.  After taking possession by the respondent bank, the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.54,000/- as EMIs for four months.  Respondent after issuing a pre-sale notice to the petitioner sold the vehicle in an open

-2-

Auction for Rs.4,63,000/-.  Notice sent to the petitioner was received back unserved as the petitioner had changed his address by that time.  Petitioner did not inform the respondent about the changed address.

District Forum, although fund the petitioner to be a defaulter, allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to deliver the seized vehicle to the respondent within 30 days from the passing of the order.  District Forum also recorded a finding that no pre-sale notice had been served on the petitioner before the vehicle was put on Auction.

Respondent being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission which has reversed the order passed by District Forum and allowed the revision petition.  The State Commission held that the respondent had taken possession of the vehicle in accordance with law after informing the local Police; that the vehicle had been sold after issuing pre-sale notice to the petitioner which was not served as the petitioner had changed the address; that the petitioner had not intimated to the respondent about the changed address; that under Clause 14.2 of the Agreement, the respondent was entitled to

-3-

take possession of the vehicle in case any default committed in making the payment of installments.  The State Commission has also referred to Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act which gives special provisions regarding motor vehicles subject to hire purchase agreements etc. 

We find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission.  Admittedly, the petitioner was a defaulter and the vehicle was repossessed in due course after informing the local police.  Pre-sale notice was issued to the petitioner but the same returned unserved as the petitioner had not informed the respondent about the changed address.  Sale of vehicle for Rs.4,63,000/- shows that the Auction sale was genuine.  The same was not a sham transaction.  The finding recorded by the State Commission is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.      

Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in Revisional jurisdiction this Commission can interfere only if the State Commission exercises jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed

-4-

to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.  We do not find that there has been any material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction on either of accounts mentioned in Section 21 of the Act.  Dismissed.