The challenge in this proceedings is to the order dated 03.03.2011 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, he State Commission in appeal no. 2469 of 2010. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 16.04.2010 passed by the III Additional Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore in complaint case no. 2990 of 2009. By the said order, the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint filed by the respondent herein with the following directions: his complaint is allowed in part. The 1st opposite party is directed to credit Rs.4,78,7891/- along with all the accrued interest from 2001, till date to the complainant PF Account no. KN/BM/24631/5588. The 1st opposite party is also directed to correct the date of commencement of Scheme to 16.11.1995. Further, the 1st opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation and a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as cost of this litigation to the complainant. The opposite part is granted 60 (sixty) days time from this date to comply this order In appeal, the State Commission partly modified the order passed by the District Forum by holding as under: he appeal is allowed in part. The order passed by the District Forum in complaint case no. 2990 of 2009 dated 16.04.2010 is hereby modified as follows: Complaint is allowed in part. OP 1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards the litigation costs. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. As far as this appeal is concerned, there is no order as to costs. We have heard Mr. Shivnath Mahantha, learned counsel for the petitioner. He does not dispute the findings of the Fora below in regard to deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner on account of delay in reflecting the correct balance in the PF Account of the complainant but he contends that this was later rectified and, therefore, no financial loss had been occasioned to the complainant. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the Fora below was not called for. We have given our thoughtful consideration to his submissions. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the order passed by the State Commission is fully justified and well-reasoned. In our view the order doesn suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error which calls for interference by this Commission. Revision petition is as such dismissed.