Respondent/complainant had purchased a jeep from Harhans Singh, who had originally purchased the vehicle after taking a loan from the petitioner.  At the time, of purchase of the jeep from Harhans Singh, a new agreement was entered into between the petitioner, the new purchaser and the old purchaser.  The old purchaser was absolved of his liability to pay the 13 remaining instalments.  The liability to pay the 13 remaining instalments was taken over by the new purchaser, i.e., the respondent.  Out of the 13 instalments, the petitioner has received 12 instalments, as recorded by the State Commission.  Petitioner seized the vehicle and took forcible possession of the same from the driver.  Respondent got possession of the vehicle through intervention of the court.  Alleging that the petitioner had changed the tyres and certain other parts of the vehicle, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum for deficiency in service.  According to the respondent, he had spent Rs.70,000/- on the repairs of the vehicle after repossession.

          District Forum, by its order dated 28.2.2003, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,36,000/- to the respondent with interest at the rate of 10% from 12.5.2003 till realization.

          Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission has reduced the amount of compensation to Rs.45,000/- as against Rs.1,36,000/-, which had been awarded by the District Forum.  State Commission awarded interest at the rate of 9% from 16.5.2003 till realization.

          We agree with the finding recorded by the State Commission.  In revision, this Commission can interfere only if the forum below has committed an error in the exercise of its jurisdiction.  No such error has been pointed out.  Dismissed.