Complainant/respondent after taking a loan of Rs.9,80,000/- purchased a heavy goods vehicle. He spent another Rs.2 Lacs for body building. Out of 47 installments of Rs.24,250/-, respondent had paid 45 installments. Two installments remained unpaid. Petitioner seized the vehicle and sold it for Rs.4,25,000/-. According to the -2- petitioner, Rs.1,38,000/- was still outstanding. Aggrieved by this, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint in part and directed the petitioner to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation towards deficiency in service and mental agony. Rs.1,000/- were awarded towards costs of litigation. Respondent accepted the order passed by the District Forum. Petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. The District Forum did not pass an order for redelivery of the vehicle to the complainant, as the complainant had not impleaded the purchaser as a party respondent. It was left open to the complainant to get his rights settled before the competent court of law for redelivery of the vehicle. Towards the deficiency in service, the sum of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded. It is fairly conceded by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not issue any notice in the newspapers or to the respondent before putting the vehicle ‘On Sale’ which it was required to do as per observations of the Supreme -3- Court of India and the directions issued by RBI. Deficiency in service on part of the petitioner is writ large. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. | 
