Aggrieved by the order dated 12^th August, 2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in the Appeal No. FA-08/539 filed by Maruti Suzuki India Limited, the petitioner herein, the present revision petition has been filed purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and has substantially modified the order of the District Consumer Forum by giving a direction to the petitioner to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.1.00 Lakh for the inconvenience and harassment caused to the complainant due to the unsatisfactory rectification of the defects pointed out in the vehicle purchased by the complainant.

          We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions.  The District Consumer Forum had earlier allowed the complaint with a direction to the petitioner-manufacturer and the dealer to refund the price of the car with certain interest on the complainant returning vehicle to them.  In appeal persuaded by the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant-petitioner and going by the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabbotra & Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 644] and M/s Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs. P. Vasudev [2000 CPJ 167 SC], the State Commission has almost set aside the order of the District Consumer Forum calling upon the petitioner to refund the entire sale consideration of the vehicle but still found that the complainant had been running from pillar to post for removing one defect or the other in the vehicle, which were not rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant.

          Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the above finding and in any case submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case the compensation awarded by the State Commission is excessive and on higher side as the complainant had himself claimed a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and, therefore, the State Commission was not justified in granting a compensation of Rs.1.00 Lakh.  We have noted these contentions simply to be rejected because the complainant, of course, claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation but that was in addition to the main relief which he claimed in regard to replacement of the vehicle with a new vehicle or the refund of the entire price of the car i.e. Rs.5,94,073/- with interest.  In view of this, the State Commission was competent to modulate the relief in the manner the State Commission did in this case going by the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case.  In our view, the finding and order passed by the State Commission is based on the correct appreciation of the evidence and material placed on record and is in consonance with the settled legal position.

          In the circumstances, we find no case for interference in the order of the State Commission in our supervisory jurisdiction.  The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.