We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The Revision is against concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission. The District Consumer Forum allowed complaint filed by the respondent and directed that the -2- revision petitioners shall refund total amount deposited by him till the date of seizure of truck along with 9% per annum towards interest. The District Consumer Forum as well as the State Commission held that the petitioners failed to establish that the seizure of the vehicle was effected after giving due notice to the respondent and moreover the petitioners failed to show as to what is the amount of price collected by way of public auction when the truck was sold away. The respondent purchased the truck with the financial help of the petitioners. 3. Both the Fora below found that the respondent had deposited instalments. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that notices were served on the respondent prior to effecting seizure and has placed on record copies of the notices dated 28.5.2007 and 28.7.2007. We find that the reply given before the District Consumer Forum and memorandum of appeal does not reflect such contention of giving notices to the respondent (Complainant). Learned counsel argued that non-consideration of the important document i.e. the notices, is therefore perversity resulted in miscarriage of justice which vitiates finding of both the fora below. He referred United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. and others, (2000) 10 SCC 19. In the given case, the Surveyor’s report was on record, but was not at all considered but in the present case the notice relied upon by the petitioners are not at all referred to in reply filed before the District Consumer Forum and the State Commission. Obviously, there is no such reference to the said documents by either Fora below. It cannot be said, therefore, that any material was ignored by the District Consumer Forum or State Commission. 4. In view of the concurrent findings of facts particularly revision petitioners failed to place any material on record to show as to what amount was collected when the vehicle was sold in the public auction. State Commission noticed that there was no notice given regarding seizure or in respect of the auction sale. The State Commission observed “non disclosure of the amount realized, further fortifies the view of the learned Forum that the amount must have been realized enough to cover the lent amount and interest. In this situation the District Forum has rightly restrained the appellant from making recovery of any amount from the respondent-borrower and directing the appellant to pay to the respondent all instalments paid by him with interest @ 9%”. 5. We do not find any merits in this revision, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. | 
