This Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the IndusInd Bank questioning the correctness of order dated 12.10.2009 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 1019 of 2009. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 27.02.2009, passed by the Chamarajanagar District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum (for short “the District Forum”) in CC No. 44 of 2008. By the said order, the District Forum had inter alia directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant a sum of `60,260/- towards the cost of the vehicle along with `1000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the Complainant etc. 2. Briefly stated the case of the Complainant before the District Forum was that he had purchased a “APE” Diesel three wheeler by raising a loan of `99,000/- from the Petitioner finance company. Under the loan agreement, dated 29.07.2005, the Complainant was required to pay 35 equated monthly instalments of `3,590/-. It seems that there were defaults on the part of the Complainant in payment of instalments on time. Consequently, on 13.12.2006, the Petitioner repossessed the subject vehicle from the workshop where it had been taken for repairs. The vehicle was subsequently sold by the Petitioner for a sum of `55,500/-. 3. Alleging deficiency on the part of the Petitioner in selling the vehicle without prior notice to him, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the Petitioner to pay to him a sum of `79,048/- along-with interest etc. The District Forum, accepted the Complaint and as noted above, directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant the aforestated amounts and also deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/- in the Consumer Protection Fund. The Appeal preferred by the Petitioner Company before the State Commission having been dismissed, they are before us in this Revision Petition. 4. The main contention of Ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that being a defaulter himself and having given a written consent for repossession of the vehicle, the sale of the vehicle by the Petitioner to recover the amount due from the Complainant towards the aforesaid loan, cannot be said to be deficiency in service on their part. 5. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the Ld. Counsel. The strong arm tactics adopted by the finance companies for repossessing the vehicles even from the defaulters have been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a number of its decisions. (See: ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Kaur & Ors. (2007) 2 SCC 711 and Citicorp Maruti Finance Limited Vs. S. Vijayalaxmi (2012) 1 SCC 1. Moreover, even assuming that the stand of the Petitioner that the Complainant had voluntarily surrendered the vehicle to them, though it seems highly improbable, as the vehicle was seized from the workshop, yet it has not been shown to us that before auctioning the vehicle a prior intimation regarding the mode, date and time of auction of the vehicle in question was given to the Complainant/borrower. In our view, mere putting up of a notice on the internal notice board of the bank’s branch is no substitute for a proper notice, as legally accepted pre-requisite for a valid public auction. We are constrained to observe that these kinds of closed door “auctions” justifiably give rise to allegation of sale of seized vehicles at a throwaway price, to the detriment of the borrowers. Having regard to the aforesaid scenario, we do not find any illegally or material irregularity in the impugned order warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction. 6. Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. | 
