Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 13.10.2011 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in appeal no. 3352 of 2011, thereby dismissing the appeal of the petitioner ICICI Bank against the order dated 17.06.2011 passed by the District Forum, Bagalkot in complaint case no. 164/2008. This is the second round of litigation before this Commission in this very matter. Earlier the complainant had approached this Commission against the order of dismissal of his complaint by the Fora below. This time it is the Bank which has come in revision against the concurrent findings and orders passed by the Fora below. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 in person and have considered their submissions. 2. The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint are amply noted in the orders passed by the Fora below and need no repetition at our end. The precise consumer dispute raised by the complainant was in regard to the repossession of his vehicle due to non-payment of balance loan of Rs.8,18,387/- against the hypothecated vehicle. Due to certain defaults made by the complainant, the vehicle was reprocessed by the financer bank. The Bank sold out the vehicle and appropriated its proceeds towards the balance payable EMI and the interest etc. The complaint was earlier dismissed by the Fora below going by the defence version put-forth by the Bank. However, on remand of the matter, the District Forum on consideration of the evidence and material brought on record and the value of the vehicle which the Financer bank would have realised and the amount which had already been paid by the complainant, held that the complainant was entitled to an amount of Rs.2,15,000/- and, therefore, directed the Bank to pay a sum of Rs.2,15,000/- with the stipulation that it shall carry interest @12% p.a. if the amount is paid within two months failing which the interest shall enhance to 18% p.a. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that it is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the evidence and material brought on record. He submits that even after adjusting the sale proceeds of the vehicle in question, still some amount was payable by the complainant. We must reject this contention in view of the detailed observations made by the District Forum in para 8, which have been rightly upheld by the State Commission. Para 8 reads as under:- . Issue 2 : The complainant has produced the certificate letter of the fixation of the value / assessment of the vehicle issued by C.B. Bhoomareddy of Adarsha Suryeor as on 9.10.2006, and they have fixed the value of the said vehicle as on 9.10.2006 at Rs.9,89,000/- as per Exhibit C-12. But, as they have not filed the affidavit in support of the evidence, the said document is not the reliable document. In the Exhibit C-28, the Insurance produced by the complainant the value of the said vehicle has been fixed at Rs.8,81,200/- and said Insurance Policy was issued on 29.8.2006. Hence, it is proper to fix the value of the said vehicle at Rs.8,81,000/-. The complainant as the loan account as per Exhibit C-27 as on 1.10.2006 he should have paid Rs.6,65,967.83. Thus out of the said vehicle price of Rs.8,81,000/- by deducting the loan amount of Rs.6,65,967.83 to be paid by the complainant to the 2nd Respondent, the complainant is entitled to obtain the difference price of the said vehicle in a sum of Rs.2,15,032.17 and rounded of to Rs.2,15,000/- as eligible. As the 2nd Respondent without issuing the notice to the complainant has sold the said vehicle, the complainant is put to mental agony. The complainant is entitled to obtain Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint also from the 2nd Respondent. The complainant has prayed higher compensation, as there are no any evidences for them, except the above, the above said reliefs, all the remaining reliefs have been rejected. Hence this forum has decided issue -2 as partly affirmative. 4. In our view the findings of the Fora below are based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence and material brought on record is fully justified. The order does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity much less any jurisdictional error which warrants interference by this Commission. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs in these proceedings as the respondent has already been paid a sum of Rs.7,500/- as litigation expenses.