The only point for consideration in this revision petition is whether there is  justification for interference at the stage of revision where only the amount of compensation has been reduced by the State Commission from Rs.40,000/- awarded by the District Forum to Rs.25,000/- while the cost has been reduced from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.5,000/- respectively. 

          In support of his case, learned counsel submits  that while the loan had been sanctioned by the respondent – opposite party, the same was not released even though an entry in the registration certificate, with regard to its hypothecation had been obtained by them.  This has prevented the complainant from operating the transport vehicle resulting in huge loss of income apart from mental agony and harassment.  The fora below have not properly appreciated the huge loss, he contends.

            We, however, find that the impugned order thoroughly discusses the point raised by the learned counsel.  Further we notice that the loan was applied for the repair of RTV meaning thereby that the vehicle in any case was not worthy of being plied/operated on the road.  Thus, the totality of view taken by the State Commission in arriving at the reduced compensation and cost is quite appropriate, fair and just.  We do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.  The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.