1. The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner Bank Of Baroda under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short, tate Commission Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Bank Of Baroda in Appeal No. 919 of 2010 setting aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, istrict Forum in Consumer Complaint No. 700 of 2009. The District Forum passed an order on 26.02.2010, and, allowed the complaint. 2. Facts of the case in brief: The Complainant, an Agriculturist, bought a tractor P.T. Escort 439 from M/S Rajiv Tractors, Dabra, Gwalior (OP-1), after availing loan from Bank of Baroda (OP-3). The OP-2 Mr. S.M. Khan, Branch Manager of OP-3 Bank, issued a loan sanction and asked the complainant to get the tractor from OP-1. On the basis of letter from OP-2, the proprietor Mr. Rajiv Sharma (OP-1), issued a cash memo dated 4/3/2008, detailing the engine no. E-3042699 and Chassis No. B-3039770. He endorsed a hypothecation agreement in favor of OP-3 Bank, and mentioned about receipt of amount of Rs.4, 56,941/- i.e., price of the tractor and Rs.1,00,000/-, towards insurance of the tractor. The Complainant also paid the amount for registration to OP-1, and he was asked to obtain the documents from the Bank. But, OP-2, Mr. S.M. Khan, did not give documents of tractor to the complainant. On 07.03.2008 when the tractor met with an accident, it was seized by the officials of Police Station, Jhansi Road, Gwalior. When the documents of tractor were demanded from the OP-2 & 3, they kept on avoiding him. Therefore, on suspicion of foul play, the complainant got the information from the RTO Office about the details of registration of the tractor, and it was learnt that tractor having Chassis No. B-3039770 and Engine No. E-3042699 bearing Registration No. MP 07 AA 1258, registered in the name of Ganga Ram Rawat, S/o Rudra Singh, Village Kheda, Tehsil Bhitarwal, District Gwalior. Complainant came to know that it was a fraud committed by OP-2 & 3, and in connivance with each other, had seized the old tractor which was sold earlier, on 11.05.2007, to Ganga Ram Rawat because of nonpayment of installments. After refurbishing, painting and removing its registration number plate, same tractor has been sold to the complainant, claiming it to be a new one, and original documents were kept hidden by them. Thus, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Gwalior seeking directions to the OPs to give new tractor or its price and insurance amount along with interest and compensation on the ground of committing gross deficiency in service. 3. The District Forum allowed the compliant, and passed an order on 26.02.2010 holding that Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, S.M. Khan, former Bank Manager and dealer Rajiv Sharma have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, and directing OP-1, Bank of Baroda, to receive the disputed tractor in its present condition from the Complainant, without any recovery of loan sanctioned against the tractor from the OP-1, and Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda ,the OP-3, to deposit the margin money which was deposited by the Complainant for approval of loan, along with interest, with the District Forum, within one month from the date of order. It further directed that the said money was to be paid to the Complainant. It is also directed that , OP-2 Rajiv Sharma, Prop. M/s Rajiv Traders and Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda shall deposit Rs.10,000/- each, separately, as compensation and Rs.1,000/- each, separately, as costs of proceedings, to be paid to the Complainant, within one month. 4. Aggrieved by this order, OP-3, filed an appeal before the State Commission. 5. The State Commission examined the evidence on record and found that Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Sarafa Bazar, Lashkar, Gwalior, S.M. Khan, occupation-Manager (former) Bank of Baroda, Branch Sarafa Bazar, Lashkar, Gwalior and Dealer Rajiv Sharma, S/o Parmanand Sharma, Prop. M/s Rajiv Traders, Gwalior Road, Dabra, all three, in connivance with each other, have financed the tractor having Chassis no. B-3039770 and Engine No. E-3042699 to the OP-1, Ratan Singh Pawaiya, and that the same was sold earlier, on 11.05.2007, to Ganga Ram Rawat, S/o Shri Rudra Singh, Village Kheda, Tehsil Bhitarwar, District Gwalior. Hence, the State Commission upheld the order of District Forum. 6. Aggrieved against the order of State Commission, the Petitioner filed this Revision Petition. 7. We have heard the Counsel for Petitioner at admission stage, perused the evidence on record and orders of both the Fora below. 8. It is an undisputed fact that, the complainant obtained the quotation for purchase of a new tractor from the OP-1. Even there is no dispute in this regard that OP-1 has sold out a tractor having Chassis No. B-3039770 and Engine No. E-3042699 vide Cash Credit Memo dated 04.03.2008. 9. The District Forum observed;- it is proved in the present case that the tractor having Chassis no B-3039770 and Engine no. E-3042699 which was sold showing it brand new to Applicant No.1, that tractor instead of being new tractor, was earlier sold to some Ganga Ram, S/o Rudra Singh, R/o Bhitarwar, Gwalior in the year 2007 vide Ex.C-9 and C-10, which was registered in RTO, Gwalior at Registration No. MP 07 AA 1258 and then definitely, by selling out old tractor to the Applicant after receiving the price of new tractor from the Non-Applicant no. 3, not only deficiency in service and unfair trade practice has been committed, but criminal offence has also been committed. 10. Therefore, it is clear that the disputed tractor was already hypothecated with the OP-3 Bank earlier in favour of Ganga Ram, S/o Rudra Singh and the same was shown to be sold to the Applicant. Thereafter, OP-3 should have made the payment after receiving explanation from the OP-1. 11. It is clear that there was a nexus between OPs, i.e. OP-3 by sanctioning loan, twice, on same tractor and making payment to the OP-1. Such services are unfair trade practices and amount to absolute deficiency in service by OPs. 12. It is so apparent that, OP-2 had the complete knowledge of the improper act of OP-1 i.e. the disputed tractor was an old one and was already registered in some other name, earlier, and disputed tractor is hypothecated because of sanctioning of loan in the name of other person, Ganga Ram earlier, therefore, OP-2 deliberately did not supply the documents to the complainant. Hence, liability should be fixed on all the OPs. 13. Therefore, we are of considered view that there is no need to interfere with the observations made by the Fora below. We endorse the same order passed by both the Fora below. Also, such service providers deserve to be properly punished. Accordingly, we impose punitive costs of Rs.25,000/- upon OP-1 and OP-3, each, which is to be deposited in Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission. 14. The OPs are directed to comply with the entire order within 60 days, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 9% pa till its realization. The Revision Petition is dismissed.