2.	The State Commission, after taking into consideration the facts, arrived at the view that though the vehicle continued to produce noise, the compensation awarded was on higher side and interest was not called for. Accordingly, the State Commission reduced the compensation from Rs. 1,50,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 without interest. The State Commission had relied upon the judgement of apex court in Maruti Udyog Ltd Vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra. The State Commission fixed the liability of payment against Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2. This order is subject mater of challenge in revision by the Complainant.
3.	Learned counsel for the Complainant submitted that the State Commission in spite of having accepted that the noise disturbs the car owner and that Maruti Suzuki, which is manufacturing large number of cars, should ensure that the vehicles manufactured by them are noise free, still chose to reduce compensation, which was rightly granted by the District Forum. After placing reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in C N Anantharam Vs M/s Fiat India Ltd & others, he urged that the order of the State Commission is required to be set aside and the order of the District Forum should be restored.
4.	In the case of C N Anantharam Vs M/s Fiat India Ltd & others (supra), the vehicle had run only 800 kms. Further, the noise was from the engine and the gearbox and there was no other major defect, which made the vehicle incapable of operation. The National Commission had given directions to appoint an independent technical expert to examine the car for the purpose of ascertaining the fact as to whether the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defects. In the case before me, the vehicle had already run 13,150 kms. There is no material, whatsoever, on record to come to the conclusion that the vehicle suffered from any manufacturing defect. In fact, it is for the Complainant to prove that the vehicle suffered from any manufacturing defect, but the Complainant chose not to examine any expert, nor did she make any request to the Consumer Forum for appointing a technical expert in that behalf. In these circumstances, the order of the State Commission reducing the compensation cannot be faulted with and, at any rate, does not call for any interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, as I do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission. Taking into consideration the value of the vehicle and the fact that the vehicle had already run 13,150 kms in about 10 months, the compensation awarded by the District Forum was certainly excessive and interest on the said amount was not called for. The State Commission had, therefore, rightly interfered with the said order and reduced the compensation awarded by the District Forum. The State Commission had, therefore, rightly interfered with the said order and reduced the compensation to Rs. 1,00,000 without interest. In view of this, I do not find any merit in this revision. The revision is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself with no order as to costs.
	Revision Petition dismissed.