PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER

For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, delay of 35 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. 2. This revision petition has been filed by the complainant/petitioner against the order dated 6.7.2009 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (tate Commissionfor short) by which the State Commission has partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner by directing that the respondent nos. 2 & 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner and also Rs.2,000/- to him by way of costs. 3. The complainant herein is the petitioner and the three respondents were opposite party nos.1, 2 & 3 respectively. Respondent no.1 is the Regional Transport Officer and respondent no.2 is the Finance Co. whereas respondent no.3 is the Ex Managing Partner of respondent no.2 Finance Co. The case of the complainant is that he is driver by profession and approached respondent no.2 for financial assistance to the extent of Rs.50,000/- for purchasing lorry AIS 4356 for a total consideration of Rs.2,25,500/- for which a financial agreement was entered into on 5.3.2005. The balance amount was paid by the complainant himself. After a few days of taking the loan, the petitioner made arrangements for the funds from other sources and paid back the entire amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest to respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 while acknowledging the amount issued a payment schedule with Form no.35, i.e., termination of agreement of hire purchase and no objection letter to the respondent no.1 for cancellation of hypothecation and release of the vehicle. But respondent no.1 declined to cancel the hypothecation of the vehicle by stating that he had received some objections from respondent no.2. Respondent no.2, according to the petitioner, seized the lorry without giving any notice to the petitioner. Respondent no.2 also sent a letter to the petitioner informing that some amount was due to be paid by him pertaining to this vehicle and called upon the petitioner to pay the said amount by specified date failing which, respondent no.2 would dispose of the vehicle. The petitioner replied by saying that he had paid the entire amount to the Managing Partner (respondent no.3) of respondent no.2 Finance Co. and no dues were left to be paid by him to respondent no.2. Failing to get a positive response from respondent no.2 in the matter, petitioner lodged a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking direction against respondents for release of vehicle, payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as loss of earnings and mental agony with interest @ 12% and cost of Rs.2,000/-. 4. Respondent no.1 resisted the complaint against him stating that respondent no.2 had sent a representation giving objection to the termination of Hire Purchase Agreement in respect of the vehicle because the respondent no.3 had reportedly resigned on 28.2.2005 and another Managing Partner had taken charge on 1.3.2005. Respondent no.2, therefore, requested respondent no.1 not to accept the clearance certificate issued by respondent no.3 and to accept papers signed by the new Managing Partner w.e.f. 2.4.2005. In his reply, he further stated that the complainant had failed to clear the dues and respondent no.3 who had resigned to 28.2.2005 had no authority to receive the installment and issue NOC to its customers and hence the vehicle had been seized on 13.7.2005 and sold on 23.10.2005 for Rs.70,000/-. The District Forum vide its order dated 15.12.2005 dismissed the complaint holding that the petitioner was a defaulter and the matter involves several disputed questions of fact and also in view of the termination in the Hire Purchase Agreement, the matter could be decided by a competent civil court having jurisdiction over it. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal challenging the same before the State Commission which has allowed it partly by its impugned order mentioned above. Not being satisfied with this order, the complainant/petitioner has approached this Commission for enhancement of the compensation. 6. We have heard Mrs. K. Radha, Advocate for the petitioner. None has appeared for the respondents who have been directed to be proceeded against ex parte (vide order dated 12.07.2011). It is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the only issue involved for consideration before us is in respect of quantum of compensation. There is no other legal issue involved in this revision petition. We have gone through the impugned order and we find that vide its detailed and well-reasoned order, the State Commission has held respondent nos. 2 & 3 as jointly and severally liable for all acts of respondent no.2 and for all that was done by respondent no.3 in regard to the receipt of amount of loan and interest from the appellant. We do not see any reason to differ from the view taken by the State Commission in this regard. We also agree with the State Commission that keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the lorry in question cannot be directed to be returned to the appellant and hence considering the year of manufacture of the lorry and its date of acquisition by the petitioner, payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner is reasonable and adequate in the given situation. In the circumstances, since no case has been made out to justify our interference with the impugned order under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, the revision petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.