The respondent purchased a Tata Sumo for Rs. 3,40,000/- from one Shri Umed Kumar in November, 2005. The said vehicle was financed for Rs.1,40,000/- which was to be repaid in 23 equal installments. Respondent paid installments regularly but due to illness he could not pay one installment and apprised the petitioner about the non-payment of one installment and gave an assurance that the defaulted installment shall be paid along-with the next installment which was falling due after some time. In spite of the assurance given by the respondent the vehicle was seized on 29.07.2006 and sold on 10.08.2006. Respondent being aggrieved filed a complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and gave the following directions:- t is the admitted fact that the vehicle in question has been taken by the respondent from the complainant. It is admitted fact that the vehicle in question has been sold to some other person. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainant is fully entitled to get the price of the vehicle as the respondents have violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. After perusing the documents, this forum is of the considered view that the respondents have violated the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. Therefore, respondents are directed to pay Rs. 3,40,000/- after deduction of 10% depreciation charges and remaining installments, on interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of snatching of the vehicle till realization. Petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order by observing thus:- rom the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is established that entire process for selling the vehicle in question by the appellants-opposite parties after re-possessing from the custody of the complainant has been carried out in an illegal manner without giving any prior notice to the complainant before selling the vehicle in the open market. No doubt, sale of the vehicle has to be carried out only in accordance with the procedure established by the law. In the catena of authorities both of the Honle Supreme Court of India as well as of Honle High Courts of the country had laid emphasis on the financer that the practice of re-possession of the vehicle and selling the same in the open market to secure the outstanding loan amount is not appreciated unless the complainant has been given notice to pay the amount of due installments. In view of the fact that the banks have passed all cannon of justice and sold the vehicle of the complainant in the open market to recover the loan amount has not been appreciated by the District Consumer Forum and we have no reason to differ with it. The District Consumer Forum has rightly directed the bank to pay the price of the vehicle on account of non-following of the procedure established by law. It would be seen from the facts narrated above that the respondent had purchased the vehicle for Rs.3,40,000/- in November, 2005 after raising a loan of Rs.1,40,000/- from the petitioner which was to be rapid in 23 equal installments. The vehicle was seized on 29.07.2006 as the respondent had failed to pay one installment. After seizing, the vehicle was sold within 13 days of its repossession without issuing a 30 daysnotice to the respondent. Even at the time of seizure no notice had been issued to the respondent. The vehicle purchased for a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- was sold in August 2006 after a period of 9 months for Rs.1 lakh only which shows the mala fide of the petitioner. This Commission can interfere under Section 21, in revisional jurisdiction only if there is an error in the exercise of jurisdiction. We do not find any material irregularity or illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction by either of the fora below. The revision petition is dismissed.