Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This is yet another case where with the help of muscleman the possession of the vehicle has been taken over by finance company. The use of muscleman was deprecated repeated not only by this Commission but also by the Apex Court in ICICI Bank vs. Prakash Koura and others ICICI Bank vs. Prakash Kaur and others (2007) 2 SCC 771. The District Forum, therefore, very rightly held that the Bank cannot employ Gundas to take possession of the vehicle by force. The petitioner had sold the vehicle after repossession and in view of the same following directions were issued by the District Forum: -

“The car has admittedly been sold by OP-2 after having been repossessed on 16.5.2005. In view of what has been discussed above, we direct that OP-2 shall have to adjust the cost of the car as on the date of seizure which would be arrived at by deducting 35% depreciation on the invoice value of the car for the reason that the car was purchased on 16.11.2001 and was repossessed on 16.5.2005. Thereafter, the balance principal amount of loan payable by complainant plus the amount of installments overdue on the date of seizure payable by the complainant be adjusted from the net depreciated value

-3-

of the vehicle to arrive at the net amount that becomes credit/debit for the complainant. OP-2 shall however have to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- including cost of the complainant as lifting of car without following due process of law by OP-2 amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Since there is no evidence on record that officials of OP-1 connived with OP-2 in the repossession of the car, the present complaint against OP-1 stands dismissed.”

          In spite of the fact that the order was passed by the District Forum following the judgment of this Commission and the Apex Court, the petitioner carried the matter before the State Commission. Before the State Commission, the matter was heard for some time and request to allow the appeal to be withdrawn with permission to file it afresh was rejected. Ultimately counsel for the petitioner stated that he does not wish to press the appeal and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. This order of the State Commission was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court by filing civil misc. application. The High Court disposed of the said application holding that if there is any misunderstanding, the petitioner ought to have approached the State Commission for

-4-

clarification of the same. In view of this, the application was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to approach the State Commission. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner approached the State Commission and the State Commission passed the impugned order dated 13.11.2009 clarifying that in the order dated 13.8.2009 in the last but one line, there has been typographical error in the word ‘partly’ whereas it should have been ‘lastly’. The petitioner prayed before the State Commission that he be allowed to file amendment application to amend memo of appeal which was rejected on the ground that the appeal had already been dismissed. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the Court was factus officio.

          Counsel for the petitioner urged before me that the matter should have been heard on merits and the State Commission has erred in passing the impugned order, which requires to be set aside. I do not find any force in the submission made by counsel for the petitioner since the order of the State Commission clearly shows that the appeal had been withdrawn by the counsel for the petitioner. It is now well settled that the record of Lower Court

-5-

cannot be challenged before the Higher Court. There is absolutely no merit in this revision.

          Accordingly, the revision is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-.