1. Mr. Natarajan Bohidar , the Complainant obtained a loan in the sum of Rs.2,93,025/- from City Bank, the Opposite Party, to purchase a car, in the year 2000. The loan was re-payable in 59 EMIs of Rs.7,089/- each, commencing from Dec.1, 2001 to Oct. 2005. The complainant made regular EMI payments in the sum of Rs. 7,089/- per month, till September, 2004 by ECS mode, through his Savings Bank account (S/B Ac) at ABN AMRO Bank, New Delhi. Thereafter, from October-November, 2004, the complainant preferred for the repayment of the installments, by cheques. He revoked the ECS mandate from ABN AMRO Bank and intimated the OP that it should not make further demands of ECS transfer on its banker to avoid duplication of payments. Nine cheques were given by the complainant to the opposite party, at the time of signing the Loan Agreement. The OP did not use the cheques, but again, made ECS demand , which was not honoured by the ABN AMRO Bank. Thereafter, the OP issued him a notice for default in the agreed terms. Hence, the Complainant paid the amount by cheque for 4 instalments which was accepted by OP. Out of 59 instalments, only 5 remained to be paid. On 15.06.2005, when the Complainant was on his way, 4-5 persons, forcibly took the car from his possession. The complainant informed the matter to the police. The OP sold the car, without a pre-sale notice and after crediting the proceeds in his account, raised an outstanding demand of Rs.5,000/-. It is alleged that OP sent a pre-sale notice, the next day of re-possession i.e. on 16.06.2005 and also a notice was sent to clear the outstanding dues, within 7 days. The OP actually sold the car for Rs.50,000/- and after crediting the proceeds in his account, raised an outstanding demand of Rs.5,000/- . 2. The Complainant filed a complaint, alleging deficiency of service, in repossessing of car when only 4-5 instalments, out of 59, remained unpaid, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, tate Commission and claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. The State Commission while observing that the claim was exaggerated just to make it come within the purview of the jurisdiction of the State Commission, remanded the complaint back to the District Forum to treat the claim as for Rs.20,00,000/- 3. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as damages for loss and harassment caused to him and also awarded Rs.25, 000/- towards litigation charges. 4. Aggrieved by the quantum of award made by District Forum, the complainant preferred First Appeal FA No.2011/106 before the State Commission, which was dismissed. 5. Hence, this revision petition. 6. We have heard both the parties. The complainant was present in person. He argued vehemently about the loss which he had suffered due to the act of OP, who took his vehicle forcibly, which is like a obberyand sold it, at hrow-awayprice. He further stated that the company had taken 9 undated cheques, as security and same could have been used for payment of balance instalments, instead of ECS mode, from October 2004, onwards. 7. We have perused the evidence and relevant documents on file. The learned Counsel for OP argued that, it has relied strictly on the terms and conditions of the agreement and it has the right to repossess the vehicle, for any default. The counsel brought our attention to copies of various letters of communications sent to Complainant. He further denied having received any instructions from the Complainant to stop ECS mode, from last 12 instalments, or any authority to use undated cheques. The counsel for OP relied upon the decision in the case of Charanjeet Singh Chadha and Ors. Vs. Sh. Jagmander Singh and Anr. (2006) 2 SCC, 598. 8. The Learned Counsel for the OP further argued that the OP has not instructed the Complainant to give post dated cheques, in advance and contended that the pre and post dated notice was given. We have insisted the counsel for OP to produce copy of the notice served upon the Complainant, prior to the possession of vehicle, but the Counsel for OP failed produce such crucial document. Hence, the argument made on behalf of OP lacks conviction. 9. We have perused the documents, OP bank statements and evidence on record, which clearly indicate that the OP, which is a responsible bank, did not show it prudence. From October 2004, OP made 4 times ESC instalment demands, which were not honoured by the complainant bank. Hence, OP made the Complainant to pay delay charges or dishonour charges. There were only 4-5 instalments which remained due for payment and the OP was in possession of 9 undated cheques in-hand, as a security. Therefore, we are unable to understand as to why OP failed to appreciate those cheques. The OP also did not disclose the reason as to why the cheques were not en-cashed in lieu of ECS. 10. We are not satisfied with OP conduct and the manner of forcible repossession of the car, without any intimation or prior notice to the complainant. OP subsequently sold the car, by issuing notice on next day 16/6/2005. The car was sold at hrow-awayprice, just, equivalent to the outstanding amount of 4-5 instalments. It appears to be a deliberate act and deficiency in service by the OP. 11. The Complainant has approached the fora below claiming compensation to the tune Rs.30,47,559/- , but he was awarded only Rs.3,00,000/-. The Complainant filed this revision for enhancement of compensation. Hence, this revision will decide whether compensation granted by the fora below is correct or is inadequate. 12. Complainant is a professional and suffered huge loss for which he has claimed a huge compensation. He has not filed any candid evidence to prove his loss. It appears to be a general vague assessment of losses suffered by the Complainant. 13. We are not convinced by the argument of the complainant. The car was purchased in the year 2000, for Rs.3,91,000/- and, it was repossessed in the year 2005. The depreciation will be at maximum of 30%, accordingly, the value of car will be around Rs.2.75 lacs or more. The fora below have considered this point, but did not award the compensation for the complainantsagony and sufferings. In such a situation, we cannot enhance the compensation, abruptly. No doubt, the Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent act, and its purpose is to provide social justice . Its misuse should not be allowed. The Consumer Fora are not lottery centres to try luck and get huge amount. The fora below have considered all points and awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Therefore, in our view, the complainant deserves further compensation for mental agony and cost. Hence, we are of considered opinion that, additional compensation of Rs.50,000/- will be just and proper. 14. On the basis of forgoing discussion, we partly allow this revision petition and modify the order of fora below as follows: The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant, with interest @ 6% per annum, from 15.06.2005, the date of re-possession of the car. OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as a costs of litigation. The entire order be complied, within 90 days from the date of receipt of order, otherwise it will carry interest @ 9%, till it realisation.