Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 10.11.09 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 968/08. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner bank herein against the order dated 09.05.08 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Delhi in complaint case no. 1257/03. The complaint in this case related to the forcible re-possession of a hypothecated vehicle for default in payment of the due installments. ..2.. After re-possession, the vehicle was sold by the petitioner bank for a sum of Rs.1,53,000/- though the value of vehicle was Rs.2,00,000/- for which a loan of Rs.1,85,000/- was granted by the petitioner bank. The District Forum having considered the matter, however, allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party bank to pay Rs.1,53,000/- the sale consideration of the car, Rs.2 lakh as compensation and Rs.20,000/- towards costs to the complainant. The State Commission, going by the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and material brought on record, more particularly the unpaid installments and the value of the vehicle, however, modified the said order with the stipulation that the petitioner bank shall return a sum of Rs.85,000/- as value of repossessed vehicle and shall also pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation including cost of litigation. Still not satisfied the petitioner bank has filed the present proceedings in this Commission. We have heard Mr. Rajeev Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions. We, once again, notice that it is a case of high handedness on the part of the petitioner bank inasmuch as they deployed certain agents/ goon of agents for ..3.. recovery of the defaulted amount/repossessing of the vehicle which is totally in violation of the guidelines issued by the apex court and the Reserve Bank of India. In our view, having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Commission has done justice in giving kind of relief which it has granted to the complainant/respondent and we do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error which calls for our interference in revisional jurisdiction u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is dismissed.