This revision petition under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against order dated 22.07.2012 passed by the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.340/2010. By the impugned order, the State Commission has reversed the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sohan (for short ‘the District Forum”) whereby the respondent bank was directed to release the subject truck bearing registration no.HP-64-0644 and also pay to the complainant a sum of `50,000/- as compensation with litigation expenses quantified at `2500/-. The State Commission has observed that after the respondent bank had taken possession of the vehicle in question, after issuing notice dated 17.07.2007 on account of failure on the part of the complainant to -3- adhere to the payment schedule for EMIs, on 03.09.2007 the truck was released to the complainant on her making payment of a lump sum of `1.25 Lac with an undertaking in writing that in future there would be no default in payments. It was agreed that in the event of any default in this regard whatever action is taken by the bank it would be acceptable to her. Having noticed that even thereafter, the complainant was defaulter in as much she did not make payments on the stipulated time, the State Commission has held that the bank was justified in repossessing the vehicle. The State Commission thus, dismissed the complaint. Hence, the present revision petition. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Assailing the order, learned counsel, appearing for the complainant, referred us to the statement of account of the complainant to show that after restoration of possession of the vehicle, the complainant did deposit three installments of `30,800/- each, yet the bank repossessed the vehicle without notice to her. Learned counsel, however, candidly admitted that the same were not deposited on due dates. Admittedly, there were defaults in payments of installments, despite assurance by the complainant
-4- that in future time/schedule shall be strictly adhere to. In that view of the matter it cannot be held that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the bank or that they had indulged in any unfair trade practice. The revision petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed accordingly. No costs. | 
