ORDER This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11th of June, 2010 passed by the Kamataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short the State Commission) in Appeal No. 3031 of 2009. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the respondent, who was the opposite party before the Dis­trict Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolar (for short the District Forum). The District Forum in its order dated 18th of May, 2009 had allowed the complaint and directed the respondent/opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,36,710/- with interest @ 10% per annum w.e.f. 4th of April, 2008 till the date of payment towards the payment as compensation for illegal sei­zure of complainant's tractor and trolley. In addition, it had awarded a compensa­tion of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and harassment. Accepting the appeal of the respondent/opposite party, the State Com­mission vide the order impugned has dis­missed the complaint. Aggrieved thereupon that the com­plainant has filed this revision petition seek­ing restoration of the award allowed to him by the District Forum. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant had purchased trac­tor and trolley by obtaining a loan of Rs.3,70,000/- on 28th of September, 2005 from the respondent M/s Mahindra Finance. The loan was to be repaid in 48 EMIs (a-of Rs.10,329/- commencing from 11th of October, 2005. The complainant, how­ever, became a defaulter and had hardly paid Rs. 1,32,930/- by the end of March, 2008. For the repeated defaults, the trac­tor had been seized but was released on the request of the complainant that he would regularly pay EMIs in future, which he failed to honour. Admittedly, he had some constraint with regard to making the regular payment of the installments. The respondent/opposite party gave reasonable opportunity to the complainant to discharge his loan liabilities but of no avail. Finally, they issued a notice to seize the vehicle in case he failed to pay the defaulted installments. When there was no response, the tractor was taken possession of. The com­plainant made no efforts to clear the due loan amount and on the other hand filed a civil suit and obtained a temporary in­junction restraining the respondent/oppo­site party from selling or transferring the tractor in question. Meanwhile, a com­plaint was filed before the District Forum alleging forcible possession of the tractor, culminating in the award by the District Forum as stated earlier. Meanwhile, a com­plaint was filed before the District Forum alleging forcible possession of the tractor, culminating in the award by the District Forum as stated earlier. When the matter was taken up in appeal before the State Commission by the respondent/opposite party, the State Commission in its detailed order has found no deficiency on part the respondent/opposite party and has dis­missed the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard on the admissibility of this re­vision petition. Records of the case have been perused. He has primarily relied upon an order passed by this Commission in the case of Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S. Vijayalaxmi [III (2007) CPJ161 (NC)], in which the issue before the Commission was the conduct of the financial institu­tions hiring recovery agents and taking forcible possession of vehicles through their muscleman in case of any default by the loanee/hire purchaser. In that case, the loanee had been offered a One Time Set­tlement (OTS) and was given a period of 14 days to deposit the OTS amount but the recovery agents of the petitioner had before the expiry of the said period forci­bly taken possession of her vehicle. The facts of that case, therefore, are not iden­tical to the facts of this case. This Com­mission in the case of Sheela Kumari Vs. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company & Ors. [II (2007) CPJ92 (NC) relying upon its earlier order in the case of Manager, St. Mary's Hire Purchase (P) Ltd. Vs. N.A. Jose [III (1995) CPJ 58 (NC)] held that seizure of a vehicle under an agreement for default in payment of installments can­not be considered as deficiency in service. It is not the case of the complainant that either he had not defaulted in the regular payment of the EMIs or that earlier when tractor had been seized for non-payment of the dues, the opposite party had released the tractor on the assurance of the com­plainant that he would henceforth make the payment of the EMIs regularly. It is also not denied that the complainant had subsequently failed to pay the EMIs which amounts to the complainant being an in­corrigible/chronic defaulter and the oppo­site party had issued him notice with re­gard to seizure of the factor in case he failed to clear the dues. Only after afford­ing adequate opportunity that the tractor was seized by the opposite party. Only after afford­ing adequate opportunity that the tractor was seized by the opposite party. The con­duct of the complainant is also evident from the fact that rather than clearing the dues, he approached the civil court for obtaining a temporary injunction. This Commission does not find anything illegal in the order passed by the State Commis­sion, wherein it has been held that "Com­plainant wants to take undue advantage of temporary injunction order, and wants OP to dance to his tunes." The State Com­mission goes on to say that if complainant is interested in tractor, he may repay the balance and take possession. In the case in hand, when sufficient and repeated no­tice and opportunities have been provided to the complainant to clear his dues, it cannot be said that there has been any deficiency on part of the respondent/op­posite party. The principle of natural jus­tice has been fully adhered to. Under the circumstances, the revision petition being devoid of any merit is dis­missed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.