Learned counsel for the respondent has tendered his Vakalatnama which is taken on record.

This revision is directed against the order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, “the State Commission”) dated 10.1.2013 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum, Hisar in limine.

The respondent/complainant filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner Bank alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner Bank by seizing the truck financed by them forcibly. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner. The District Forum, however, on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner as under: -

“So keeping in view the above circumstances, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the amount deposited by the complainant to opposite parties alongwith margin money after deducting 10% of total price of the truck on account of depreciation as truck was used by the complainant about one year and further to pay Rs.50,000/- in lump sum as compensation and cost of litigation. Order of this Forum be complied within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which opposite parties will pay interest on the awarded amount at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of complaint till realization. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as required under Sub Rule 10 Rule 4 of the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 1988. File be consigned after due compliane.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has contended that the petitioner has no grievance against the order of the Foras below on merits but the lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- including cost of litigation awarded by the Foras below is unreasonable and on higher side.

We do not find any merit in this contention. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that the respondent due to wrongful seizure of his truck  has been deprived of his income which he could generate by plying the truck and has also been put to the rigours of protracted trial, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the foras below is reasonable. Thus, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.