ORDER Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member : M/s. Capital Trust Ltd. has filed this revision petition against the Order dated 10.11.2006 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No. 780 of 2006 which has partly allowed the appeal and modified the Order dated 6.7.2006 in Complaint No. 780 of 2006 of the District Forum, Janakpuri to the extent that the amount of compensation shall be shared equally by the appellant as well as respondent No.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are: 3. Mr. L.S. Rana purchased a motorcycle from respondent No.2, M/s. S.K. Traders by raising loan from the petitioner payable in monthly instalments for a year. The case of Shri L.S. Rana is that he has paid instalment each month but the petitioner's employee named Mr. Manoj Kumar never give a receipt. It is also seen that he had given the postdated cheques to the petitioner with an understanding that he will pay in cash and the cheques should not be presented. In spite of this understanding, petitioner presented the cheques, which got bounced. 3. Mr. L.S. Rana had purchased this motorcycle to give it to his daughter at the time of her marriage and since the petitioner did not give keys and Registration Certificate of the motorcycle he felt humiliated at the time of marriage of his daughter. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner and the dealer M/s. S.K. Traders, to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000 along with Rs.1,000 as cost of litigation. 4. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission held that the record shows that the petitioner received the payments in cash and held it unfair trade practice on the part of the petitioner to accept the payment in cash and also at the same time presenting the postdated cheques for payment. State Commission partly allowed the appeal and held petitioner and respondent No. 2 equally liable and not jointly and severally as directed by the District Forum. 5. In this revision petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Fora below have wrongly come to the conclusion by holding the petitioner deficient in service. They further denied that they received instalments in cash. 6. 5. In this revision petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Fora below have wrongly come to the conclusion by holding the petitioner deficient in service. They further denied that they received instalments in cash. 6. In our view; facts of the case have been established in both the Fora below that payments were accepted in cash on the understanding and accordingly cheques were not encashed initially.' By their own conduct it is established that petitioner accepted cash. T 1e learned Counsel for the petitioner could not show any record that has not been taken into consideration by them and therefore we find no reason that warrants us to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the State Commission in our revisional jurisdiction. 7. The revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.