PER MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER The Petitioner/Complainant had purchased Wagon-R (Lxi) on 17.6.2004 for a sum of Rs.3,56,740/-. According to the Complainant, the vehicle was producing noise right from the beginning and the same could not be rectified in spite of the fact that the vehicle was taken to the Workshop of the dealer Modern Automobiles, Opposite Party no.3/Respondent no.3 on a number of occasions. The District Forum found that the Complainant had use the car for 13150 kms. within 10 months and taking the same into consideration awarded a sum of Rs.1.5 lakh as compensation with 9% p.a. interest from the date of filing of the complaint till actual realization. This order was challenged by the Opposite Parties before the State Commission. The State Commission after taking into consideration that though the vehicle continued to produce noise was of the view that the compensation awarded was on higher side and interest was not called for. Accordingly, the State Commission reduced the compensation from 1.5 lakh to Rs.1 lakh without interest. The State Commission had relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in Maruti Udyog ltd. V/s. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra [(2006) 4 SCC 644]. The State Commission fixed the liability of payment as against Opposite Party nos.1&2. This order is subject matter of challenge in revision by the Complainant. Learned counsel for the Complainant submitted that the State Commission in spite of having accepted that the noise disturbs the car owner and Maruti Udyog Ltd., who is manufacturing large number of cars, should ensure that the vehicles manufactured by them are noise free, still chose to reduce compensation which was rightly granted by the District Forum. After placing reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in C.N. Anantharam V/s. M/s. Fiat India Ltd. and others , a copy of which has been filed, he urged that the order of the State Commission is required to be set aside and the order of the District Forum should be restored. In the case of C.N. Anantharam V/s. M/s. Fiat India Ltd. and others (supra) the vehicle had run only 800 kms. and the noise was from the engine and the gear box and there was no other major defect which made the vehicle incapable of operation. The National Commission had given directions to appoint an independent technical expert to examine the car for the purpose of ascertaining the fact as to whether the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defects. In the case before me, the vehicle had already run 13150 kms. and there is no material whatsoever on record to come to the conclusion that the vehicle suffered from any manufacturing defect. In fact, it is for the Complainant to prove that the vehicle suffered from any manufacturing defect, but the Complainant chose not to examine any expert, nor she made any request to the Consumer Forum for appointing a technical expert in that behalf. In these circumstances, the order of the State Commission reducing the compensation cannot be faulted with and at any rate does not call for any interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction as I do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission. Taking into consideration the value of the vehicle and the fact that the vehicle had already run 13150 kms. in about 10 months, the compensation awarded by the District Forum was certainly excessive and interest on the said amount was not called for. The State Commission had, therefore, rightly interfered with the said order and reduced the compensation to Rs.1 lakh without interest. In view of this, I do not find any merit in this revision. The revision is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself with no order as to costs.