ORDER B.K. Taimni, Member—Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. 2. Very briefly stated, the facts leading to filing the complaint were that on 16.3.06, the petitioner/complainant purchased a three wheeler pick-up van from the first respondent with financial assistance from Sriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., the third respondent. It was the case of the petitioner/complainant before the State Commission that as per conditions in the warranty card, the vehicle was to get a ‘free-service’ regularly, per month, for six months. The second respondent ‘serviced’ the vehicle on two occasions, i.e., on 16.4.06 and 20.5.06. It was the case of the complainant that the second service was to be carried out on or before 16.5.06 but the second respondent provided the service on 20.5.06. Other four services could not be utilised, as the second respondent did not send the warranty card to the first respondent for providing ‘free service’ to the vehicle. There was delay in sending service coupons, which was not accepted by the petitioner as a result of which ‘free-service’ as per terms of the warranty could not be carried out by the first and second respondents. It was also the case of the complainant that certain defects developed in the engine, crankcase of the vehicle the battery became weak and non-functional, which was not attended to by the respondents. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed before the District Forum, which through a very elaborate order granted the following reliefs: “1. The respondent No. 1, 2 and 4 jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay the complainant sum of Rs.12,000 (Rupees twelve thousand) only as compensation for mental agony and other sufferings and besides Rs.l,000; (Rupees one thousand) only towards cost of the proceedings. 2. The 4th respondent is hereby directed to take possession of the vehicle KA-37/4116 is kept at Badashah Garage, Hospet and to rectify all the defects as found in the vehicle and make the vehicle in good and workable condition free of cost and also purchase missing parts of the engine as per inspection report dated 15.5.2007 at cost of the complainant and hand over same to him (complainant) within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 3. 3. The complainant is directed to assist official of the 4th respondent while taking said vehicle, which is kept at Badashah Garage, Hospet to carry out necessary repairs as stated above. 4. Instead of collecting cost of missing parts from the complainant initially, the respondent No.1, 2 and 4 are directed to adjust abovesaid compensation amount payable to the complainant towards cost of purchase of missing parts of the vehicle, even after adjusting said amount if any balance is left out then same may be recovered from the complainant at the time of delivery of the repaired vehicle to him. The report of official of the 4th respondent Sri B. Nedumaran, dated 15.5.07 regarding missing parts of the vehicle is part and partial of this order. 5. The complaint against the 3rd respondent is dismissed since no relief is claimed against it.” 3. Not satisfied with these reliefs, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the appeal, hence this revision petition. 4. We heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the material on record. After seeing the complaint, we find that all other reliefs have been granted except compensation of Rs. 80,000, as also direction to the financer of the vehicle to not to recover installments, due to him. 5. In the aforementioned circumstances as discussed at length by the District Forum, we are afraid no such directions can be given to the financer to not to charge installments. Hence the District Forum has rightly not granted such relief. 6. We, like the State Commission, also find that the relief granted by way of compensation is adequate and the discretion exercised by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission on the point of quantum of compensation does not call for any interference in the revision stage, as the District Forum has comprehensively discussed the issues at length and have then arrived at the conclusion on the point of quantum of compensation, as also other directions to carry-out repair. 7. After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that there is no ground for us to interfere in the well-reasoned order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission, in view of which, we find no merit in this revision petition. Hence dismissed. Revision dismissed. *******