This revision petition has been filed by HDFC Bank Limited, Petitioner herein and Opposite Party before the IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore City (for short the District Forum) being aggrieved by the order of the Fora below which had allowed the complaint filed by Veerabhadraiah S.C., Respondent herein and Original Complainant before the District Forum. In his complaint before the District Forum, Respondent/Complainant had stated that he had obtained a loan of Rs.23,000/- from the Petitioner/Bank for purchase of a vehicle. The loan was to be repaid in 20 monthly installments at the rate of Rs.1357/- per month. Although Respondent/Complainant states that he had paid 13 monthly installments and due to some personal difficulties he could not pay two installments by 05.12.2008, without giving any intimation, Petitioner/Bank seized the vehicle on 13.02.2008 when it was parked near Kala Bhaira Veshwara Temple in the absence of Respondent/Complainant. Since the Respondent/Complainant did not know who had taken the vehicle, he filed a complaint of theft with the police on 15.12.2008. Subsequently, the Petitioner/Bank informed the Respondent/Complainant on telephone that his vehicle had been seized for non-payment of monthly installments. Respondent/Complainant undertook to pay the due loan amount of Rs.12230/- on pre-closure basis. In spite of his difficulties, it was contended by the Respondent/Complainant that he arranged for this amount and approached the Petitioner/Bank but despite this, Petitioner/Bank refused to release the vehicle. Being aggrieved, he filed a complaint on grounds of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service before the District Forum and requested that the Petitioner/Bank be directed to release the vehicle or pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- being the actual cost of the vehicle in the event it had already been sold out and pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service. Petitioner/Bank on being served denied the allegations made in the complaint and stated that admittedly the Respondent/Complainant was a defaulter as he had not made the payments as agreed to in terms of the agreement. Further, since the loan was taken against hypothecation of the vehicle, the Respondent/Complainant could not become the absolute owner of the vehicle until and unless he paid the last installment due, only after which the vehicle could be registered in his name. Under the circumstances, the contention of the Respondent/Complainant that the vehicle in question of which he was the owner was repossessed/seized without any intimation of the same is incorrect. On the other hand, repossession of the vehicle was included in the terms of the agreement in case of the Respondent/Complainant becoming a defaulter. Further, it was stated that pre-sale notice was issued to the Respondent/Complainant by the Petitioner/Bank. The District Forum after hearing the parties and on the basis of evidence produced before it allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner/Bank to pay Rs.45,000/- to the Respondent/Complainant in place of his bike. Sum of Rs.20,000/- was also directed to be paid as penalty besides Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses. The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) on appeal by the Petitioner/Bank upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Bank argued that pre-sale notice had been issued to the Respondent/Complainant before repossession. Our attention was drawn in this behalf to the letter addressed on 18.11.2008 by the Petitioner/Bank to the Respondent/Complainant, in which the entire loan was recalled by the Bank. However, learned Counsel agreed that no evidence of service of this notice of recall on the Respondent/Complainant was placed before the Fora below. Learned Counsel also agreed that this notice even if it had been served would not amount to notice before repossession. Law on this point is very clear. In ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Prakash Kaur and others, (2007) 2 SCC, 711, the matter before Honle Supreme Court of India was regarding finance of a truck by ICICI Bank. The purchaser defaulted in payment of installments. In terms of agreement between the parties, the truck was taken possession by use of force. The High Court of Allahabad, on the application of the borrower, directed the police authority to register a case against those responsible for forcible repossession. In appeal against this order, Honle Supreme Court accepted the offer of the Bank to compromise the matter by forgoing interest payable on outstanding dues and to set aside the direction of the High Court. However, the Bank was directed to release the vehicle upon deposit of Rs.50,000/-. But the Supreme Court has clearly recorded its disapproval of the method adopted in repossession of the vehicle in the following terms:- 6. Before we part with this matter, we wish to make it clear that we do not appreciate the procedure adopted by the Bank in removing the vehicle from the possession of the writ petitioner. The practice of hiring recovery agents, who are musclemen, is deprecated and needs to be discouraged. The Bank should resort to procedure recognized by law to take possession of vehicles in cases where the borrower may have committed default in payment of the instalments instead of taking resort to strong-arm tactics. Therefore, we find no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings reached by the Fora below. The revision petition is held to be devoid of any merit and dismissed as such.