Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), whereby the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioners herein, has been dismissed. It is not in dispute that the Respondent herein had pledged certain jewellery items with the Petitioners and taken loan. He did not pay the interest on the due dates, where-upon the Petitioners sold them by auction. The Respondent averred in para-5 of the Complaint that neither prior notice for auction nor oral information was given to him. In the written version filed by the Petitioner before the District Forum, no specific denial of the averments made in para-5 of the Complaint has been made. Only a general denial has been made and further there is no averment made in the written version that notice was sent to the Respondent, which had been served. On the basis of this material, the State Commission has recorded the following findings: “6. It is the definite case of Respondent/Complainant that there was no notice to him before his pledged jewels were sold in public auction. At this juncture, it is very pertinent to note the written version filed by the opposite parties wherein they had not denied the allegations that the complainant (wrongly shown as complaint) was not served with any notice regarding the sale of pledged jewels in public auction, if the complainant did not remit the total amount outstanding on these transactions. Hence it can be simply held that the opposite parties had admitted lack of notice to the complainant regarding the public auction sale of his pledged jewels. 7. The learned District Forum had recorded a detailed finding that there was no proper service of notice to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party. It is surprising to note that even upto now the appellants/opposite parties have not specifically stated as to whether the jewels pledged by the complainant with them were sold in public auction or not and as to whether when was such auction took place and for what amount the pledged jewels were sold in auction and whether there was any surplus vis-à-vis, the amount payable by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party and if at all there was any excess amount how that was disposed of and if there was any short-fall, what steps were taken by the opposite parties to make good with the deficit. We do not find the above stated particulars in the written version filed by the opposite parties, proof affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties and even in the grounds of appeal filed before this Commission. 8. It is rather surprising to note that in the written version filed by the opposite parties in para No.7, they have specifically pleaded as “Further the available records show that the complainant had received back his jewels. For full and exact particulars the documents are to be received back from the Head office, hence the opposite parties reserved their rights to file additional written version”. No additional written version was subsequently filed and hence it emerges that even the opposite parties are not knowing as to whether the jewels pledged by the complainant were sold in auction or returned to the complainant on redemption or still lying with the opposite parties. 9. The learned District Forum has clearly recorded a finding that the complaint was filed in time and that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and we do not find any reason and ground to interfere with the said finding. Hence we hold that the order of the District Forum does not suffer from any defect warranting interference by us.” From a perusal of the aforesaid findings recorded by the State Commission, which are based on appreciation of evidence and material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality so as to warrant interference in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In view of the above, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. | 
