JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. On 15.5.2012, learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement before this Commission that he did not pick up a conflict with the order passed by the State Commission. However, he explained that the complainant has been ordered to pay 11 installments in one go but the petitioner being a poor person cannot pay the entire amount at once. He further submitted that the petitioner could be allowed to deposit three installments only and thereafter, the truck should be released and thereafter he would pay the remaining installments. Notice was issued to the respondent on this limited question but he refused to give concurrence to the above said suggestions. Final arguments were heard. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner/complainant is that the petitioner purchased a truck under the hire purchase agreement. This is an indisputable fact that the petitioner, Pramod Kumar Rai is in arrears of monthly installments. He was to pay 11 monthly installments in the sum of Rs.21,460/- each, which were due to be paid by the complainant. Being a defaulter, the truck was seized on 23.5.2011. The State Commission held that Finance Company is fully competent to secure payment of its loan amount. The complainant is a defaulter and cannot derive advantage of his default. The State Commission was kind enough and ordered that in case installments in arrears were deposited by the complainant, the finance company shall release the truck in his favour. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is a poor person. When we asked whether he was ready to deposit the installments of three months, he wanted another one month to deposit the above said three installments. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner has no intention to pay off the loan. The but and ben stand set up by the petitioner cannot produce the desired result. 4. Again, it is well settled that as per agreement, the respondent, finance company is well within its right to seize the said truck. This view is supported by the National Commission in the case of Surendra Kumar Agarwal vs. Telco Finance Limited & Anr. II (2010) CPJ 163(NC). 5. The order passed by the State Commission already favours the petitioner. The loan was obtained as back as on 1.4.2007. The truck was seized somewhere in the year 2009. 6. Under the circumstances, the request of the petitioner that he would deposit the installments of the vehicle in the year 2012, which are due from the year 2008-2009, cannot be accepted. Had he genuine intention, he would have paid the three installments immediately. 7. The revision petition is lame of strength and is, therefore, dismissed. | 
