V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner Javed @ Sakir Ali purchased a truck bearing No.HR-58-A/3033 and got it financed from the respondent-Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. for a sum of Rs.5,35,000/- on 30-01-2008. The loan amount was required to be repaid by the petitioner in 43 monthly instalments. However, the petitioner committed default in payment of the instalments. The case of the complainant/petitioner is that he had paid as much as Rs.7,00,000/- to the respondent but possession of the truck was taken forcibly from him on 20-08-2011. This is also the case of the complainant that when he approached the respondent for release of the vehicle they demanded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from him. The complainant being aggrieved from the act and conduct of the respondent approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamunanagar (for short, the District Forum) seeking the following reliefs: (1) That the respondents be restrained to demand illegal amount from the complainant and to release the vehicle in question immediately along with original documents and also issue NOC of the said vehicle. (2) That the respondents be directed to provide new tyres of the said vehicle and also to give diesel 450 literes. The respondents be directed to pay the cost of Core Sand which was loaded in the truck. (3) That the respondents be directed to charge the rate of interest @8% p.a. as agreed. (4) That the respondents be directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per day on account of illegal detention of vehicle from the day of taking possession till releasing of vehicle. (5) That the respondent be directed to make the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- due to harassment and mental agony to the complainant. 2. The complaint was resisted by the respondent inter alia on the ground that the complainant paid loan instalments only upto 19-04-2011 and a sum of Rs.6,09,431.92/- was outstanding against him. It was also alleged in the reply that the complainant himself surrendered the vehicle to the respondent, expressing his inability to pay the loan amount. 3. The District Forum vide its order dated 22-11-2013, directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.6,15,084/- towards the cost of the vehicle along with litigation expenses amounting to Rs.20,000/-. Interest @12% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation was also awarded to the complainant. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the respondent approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (for short the State Commission) by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 26-03-2014, the State Commission set aside the order passed by the District Forum. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner is before us by way of this revision petition. 4. It is an admitted case that a release order dated 13-04-2012 which is available on page 58 of the paper book was issued to the complainant/petitioner so as to enable him to take delivery of the vehicle from the Yard Manager, Ritika Stock Yard, Nagar, Saharanpur. The complainant/petitioner signed the aforesaid letter and noted in his own hand that he was receiving the release order and had been asked to take the delivery of the vehicle from Nangal Yard. 5. The aforesaid release order bears yet another endorsement in Hindi, purporting to be in the handwriting of the complainant/petitioner, acknowledging receipt of the vehicle in good condition. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant states that the above noted writing is forged one and does not bear signature of the complainant. He further submits that the plea taken by the complainant was accepted by the District Forum. He has also drawn our attention to a document available on page 59 of the paper book which purports to be the record of Ritika Stock Yard. The aforesaid document would show the truck No. HR-58-A/3033 was parked at the said yard on 20-08-2011 and was released on 16-04-2012, after 248 days. However, the aforesaid document does not bear signature of the complainant/petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that had the vehicle been delivered to the petitioner on 13-04-2012, the entry in the document on page 59 of the paper book also would have been of the same date and not of 16-04-2012. We, however, find no merit in the contention that the release order was issued on 13-04-2012. Nothing prevented the petitioner/complainant from taking delivery of the vehicle from the yard on 16-04-2012. In our view, the entry made in the register of the stock yard instead of supporting the case of the petitioner, rather supports the case of the respondent since it clearly indicates that the truck No.HR-58-A/3033 was released from the said yard on 16-04-2012. 6. We asked the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant as to whether the complainant/petitioner approached the yard for the purpose of taking the delivery of the vehicle or not. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner/complainant did go to the yard for taking delivery of the vehicle and found the vehicle parked there in damaged condition but the possession of the vehicle was never offered to him. We then asked the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant as to whether he wrote any letter to the respondent-company stating therein that despite release order having been issued to him, the possession of the truck was not given to him at the yard. The learned counsel, however, could not draw our attention to any such letter from the petitioner/complainant to the respondent. We also asked the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant as to whether, finding that despite release order having been issued to him, possession of the truck was not being offered, the petitioner/complainant lodged any report with the police. Again, no police report has been shown to us. In the normal course of human conduct, had the respondent not released the vehicle to the complainant/petitioner despite issuing the release order to him he would have sent a written notice/letter to the company informing that despite release order having been issued to him possession of the truck had not been handed over to him. That having not been done we see no good reason to differ from the view taken by the State Commission in this regard. 7. In fact, the release order was issued in compliance of an order dated 10-04-2012 passed by the District Forum, directing respondent to handover the aforesaid vehicle to the complainant/petitioner within three days. A perusal of the order of the State Commission also shows that on 16-04-2012, the petitioner/complainant moved an application(Annexure A9)before the Station House Officer,Nangal, stating therein that when he went to take delivery of the vehicle some parts of the vehicle i.e. all the tyres, 450 ltr. Diesel, one battery of Amron company and Axel were found missing from it and the respondent had assured him to give them later on. This leaves no reasonable doubt in our mind that the vehicle was in fact taken by the petitioner though some parts were missing from it. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that recording of the State Commission is not factually correct. We then asked the learned counsel to produce Annexure A9 referred in para 6 of the order of the State Commission before us. He, however, is unable to produce the said document. Since the order of the State Commission purports to be based upon a document, there is no reason for us to conclude that it was factually incorrect. For the reasons stated herein above we find no reason to interfere with the order of the State Commission. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.