PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.10.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission in Appeal Nos. 526 & 685 of 2008 M/s. Metro Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sulekh Chand & Ors. and M/s. Tata Motors Vs. Sulekh Chand & Ors. by which, while allowing appeals, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/petitioner purchased ICV 6 wheeler TATA LPT/1109/36 HI-Deck-Ex.II model from OP No. 2/Respondent No.2 authorized dealer of OP No. 1/ Respondent No.1 and paid Rs.1,15,248/- and remaining price i.e. Rs.5,73,000/- was got financed by the complainant. OP also provided printed brochure of the vehicle according to which, vehicle was having a maximum permissible gross weight of 11900 kgs. and a pay load of 8315 kgs. whereas its unladen weight was 3585 kgs. which was not as per brochure. Complainant approached OP for taking back the vehicle and refunding the amount, but OP did not refund money. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OPs contested complaint and submitted that complainant failed to repay loan instalments as per schedule and possession of the vehicle was taken by OP and vehicle has been re-sold to M/s. Giani Motor. Further, denying any deficiency, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs. 1,15,248/- along with 10% p.a. interest and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as cost. Appeals filed by the OPs were allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that vehicle supplied by the respondents to the petitioner is not as per specifications in the brochure and learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint, but learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint; hence, revision petition is admitted. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not show any variation in the specifications mentioned in the sale letter and learned State Commission rightly allowed appeals and dismissed complaint as no deficiency could have been attributed to the OPs. 6. In the revision petition at page 25, petitioner has filed Photostat copy of the brochure. During pendency of revision petition, petitioner filed I.A. No. 4937 of 2013 and by this I.A., photocopy of brochure was taken on record. Perusal of both the brochures reveals that there is some difference in both the brochures. In the brochure filed at page 25 Payload (kg) has been shown as 8315 whereas in the brochure filed along with application, maximum payload (kg) has been shown as 8355 and in front of this 8315 has also been shown. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not clarify for what purpose weights in second columns have been given. When both the brochures filed by the petitioner do not tally, we cannot arrive at a conclusion that any of the above brochures was given by respondents to the petitioner and vehicle sold to the petitioner does not tally with specifications mentioned in the sale letter. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that unladen weight of the vehicle has been mentioned as 3350 kgs. in the Registration Certificate whereas after deducting 8355 from 11900 it should have been 3545. We are not convinced with this argument because unladen weight cannot be obtained by reducing maximum Payload from maximum permissible GVW and in such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. 8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.