Challenge in these proceedings initiated u/s 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to the order dated 30.10.09 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 162/08. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 09.1.08 passed by the District Forum in complaint case no. 34/06 by ..2.. which the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint filed by the petitioner herein alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent bank and had directed to the bank to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Not satisfied with the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission seeking upgradation of the relief by enhancement of the compensation so awarded by the District Forum. The State Commission in appeal has found no justification for enhancement of the compensation taking the case of the complainant at its highest in regard to the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondent bank. We are entirely in agreement with the reasoning and finding given by the State Commission and do not see any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission which calls for interference in revisional jurisdiction u/s 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.