Complainant, petitioner herein, purchased a truck, Ashok Layland under Hire Purchase Scheme after obtaining finance from respondents No. 2 and 3.  It was alleged by him in the complaint that inspite of making of regular payment of installments, respondents No.2 & 3 forcibly took possession of the truck which amounted to

-2-

misconduct and deficiency in service on part of respondents No.2    and 3.

          District Forum after hearing counsel for the parties, dismissed the complaint.  District Forum recorded a finding that the petitioner had failed to prove that he had repaid the installments as per Agreement.  Further finding recorded was that the petitioner had failed to place sufficient material on record to show that the possession of the truck had been taken by the respondents No.2 & 3 forcibly.

          Not satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission has reiterated the finding recorded by the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.

          Counsel for the petitioner contends that it is not a case where the petitioner was not making the payment, though the payments were made irregularly; that the foras below have erred in recording the finding. 

-3-

Petitioner had failed to prove that he was paying the installments as per Agreement.  This apart, counsel for the petitioner has not been able to displace the finding recorded by the foras below that the respondents No.2 and 3 had taken forcible possession of the truck from him.  We agree with the view taken by the foras below that the petitioner has failed to prove the payments were made as per Agreement and that possession of the truck was taken from him forcibly by respondents No.2 and 3.   We agree with the same.  Otherwise also, finding recorded by the foras below is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.  Dismissed.  No costs.