PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 26.3.2013 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 111 of 2013 Mangat Ram Vs. Syndicate Bank by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner being unemployed obtained a loan of Rs.85,500/- from the OP/respondent for purchase of three wheeler under the scheme rime Minister Rozgar Scheme As per version of the complainant, there was subsidy of Rs.7500/- on the loan amount without any interest which was to be payable in 60 instalments. OP issued letter to the complainant that he is defaulter and directed complainant to deposit balance loan amount of Rs.19,796/-. OP charged interest on subsidiary amount of Rs.7,500/-, which was against the instructions of RBI. Complainant requested to the OP in this regard, but nothing was done and in such circumstances, complainant made complaint to Banking Lok Pal and RBI upon which, OP refunded a sum of Rs.1113/- to the complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP contested complaint and submitted that amount of Rs.1113/- was charged inadvertently and Pay Order of this amount was sent to the complainant on 27.3.2008, but he has not encashed Pay Order and wants to harass OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to issue fresh Pay Order of Rs.1113/- and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony as well as litigation expenses. Appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Heard petitioner in person at admission stage and perused record. 4. Perusal of record clearly reveals that respondent refunded Rs.1113, excess amount charged from the petitioner, but on account of harassment, District Forum allowed Rs.10,000/- as compensation, which cannot be said to be inadequate compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. It appears that complainant unnecessarily filed appeal before State Commission for enhancement and even after dismissal of appeal he has preferred this revision petition for enhancement of compensation without any justification. We do not see any reason for enhancement of compensation. 5. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.