PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against the impugned order dated 28.10.2010 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 405 of 2010 Smt. Shalini Singh Vs. The Manager, Tata Motors & Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order passed by District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Petitioner/Complainant vehicle Tata 407 was financed by OP No.1/Respondent No.1 on 2.3.2006. Complainant was paying instalments regularly, but could not pay three instalments on account of financial crises and on 21.1.2008, some persons of OP No.1 after beating complainant husband, took away the vehicle and against this act, an FIR was lodged. On 31.5.2008, complainant deposited Rs.1,17,835/- with OP No.1 and OP No.1 issued letter for release of vehicle. Complainant went to Ganpati Yard, Riwa on 1.6.2008 for release of vehicle, but it was not released and complainant was asked to pay Rs.22,600/- as Gunda Tax. It was further alleged that vehicle in the yard was without tyres and window glasses and was not in running condition and damages were to the extent of Rs.80,000/-. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint for grant of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation and release of vehicle. OPs filed written statement and denied allegations of the complainant and further denied demand of Rs.22,600/- and damages of Rs.80,000/- in the vehicle and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint against which, petitioner filed appeal before learned State Commission. Learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal and upheld order of District forum dismissing complaint against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard authorised representative of the petitioner in person and perused record. 4. Authorised representative of the petitioner submitted that in spite of depositing amount, vehicle was not released and later on, on the direction of District Forum vehicle was released, which was not in running condition and without any tyres, window glasses, etc. even then, his complaint was dismissed by learned District forum and learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that, as the vehicle was received by petitioner in good condition, learned District Forum has not committed any error in dismissing complaint and order passed by learned State Commission does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. It is admitted case of the petitioner that 3 instalments were not paid by the petitioner. It appears that on account of non-payment of instalments, vehicle was possessed by persons of the respondents and only after payment of due instalments, vehicle was released. Perusal of record further reveals that vehicle was released to the petitioner in good condition and petitioner had no complaint at that time about any damages in the vehicle. In such circumstances, it cannot be inferred that vehicle was not released in the condition in which it was taken by the persons of the respondents. It appears that vehicle was not released immediately after depositing due amount as petitioner did not pay parking charges and this complaint was filed on 24.7.2008 with the motive of avoiding parking charges in which he succeeded ultimately as District Forum directed on 19.9.2008 to release the vehicle without paying parking charges and vehicle was released on 20.9.2008 without paying parking charges. 6. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, which calls for any interference and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs