Petitioner, which is a finance company, who had financed the motor-cycle purchased by the complainant, has filed the present Revision Petition.

          Briefly stated the facts are that the complainant purchased a motor-cycle for a sum of Rs.29,431/-.  The said vehicle was financed by the petitioner and the complainant started making payment of instalments.  According to the complainant, he paid Rs.1700/- in cash as advance besides Rs.701/-.  Remaining amount was to be paid in 36 Equated Monthly Instalments of Rs.1,021/- each through ECS system.  Because of some technical problem, one of the said instalments was not collected by the petitioner in spite of there being sufficient funds in the account of the complainant.  Because of the said default, according to the complainant, the petitioner forcibly took the vehicle from the custody of the complainant.

          Being aggrieved, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum.  On being noticed, petitioner appeared and filed its written version.  According to the petitioner, the vehicle was voluntarily surrendered by the respondent and he had signed the surrender documents also.  It was denied that the vehicle had been forcibly taken.  District Forum, after taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties, allowed the complaint and directed as under :

“We, therefore, hold the OP to be guilty of unfair trade practice, direct it to return Rs.4484, four instalments paid by the complainant, to pay Rs.1700/- which was paid as advance by the complainant and to pay Rs.701/- paid by the complainant for insurance premium.  The OP subjected the complainant to great mention tension and physical harassment besides humiliating him in his office.  We, therefore, direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only0 as compensation for mental and physical harassment to the complainant and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) as cost of litigation expenses.”

Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed.  State Commission also agreed with the finding recorded by the District Forum that the vehicle had not been surrendered by the respondent voluntarily and that the signatures of the respondent on the surrender certificate had been taken under duress.  The finding recorded by the fora below that the surrender of the vehicle was not voluntary and the signatures of the respondent had been taken under duress is a finding of fact, which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.  Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the National Commission, in revision, can interfere with the orders only if it appears that the Authority below has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

          We find no error/irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the State Commission in its impugned order.  Dismissed.  No costs.