Heard learned counsel for petitioner – Bank and respondent. To begin with, respondent/complainant who had a Savings Bank Account with petitioner Bank at Daltonganj, Kuchari Main Branch, was also holder of ATM Card issued by petitioner Bank. While so, at Calcutta, he used his ATM Card issued by Bank on 21.12.2004, several times to withdraw a sum of Rs. 40,000/- with an object to make some purchases but he was unsuccessful. Notwithstanding non-delivery of cash of Rs. 40,000/- by ATM machine, he found that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- along with Rs. 148/- later being service charges for use of ATM Card was debited from his Savings Bank A/c. Respondent embarrassed with the conduct of the Bank, informed them pursuant to which, the Bank on receipt of complaint having made enquiries, credited a sum of Rs. 40,000/- in the respondent’s Savings Bank a/c on 03.01.2005. The service charges of Rs. 148/-, however, debited from his SB A/c was not credited. Aggrieved respondent, alleging deficiency in service of the Bank, instituted a consumer complaint. District Forum, however, on consideration of defence of the petitioner Bank, being not tenable, while accepting complaint, directed Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the respondent/complainant along with Rs. 148/- levied as ATM service charges. State Commission too, put its seal of affirmana on aforesaid finding, dismissing appeal filed by Bank. Petitioner Bank is now in revision. Complaint of respondent is sought to be countered by counsel for petitioner Bank on premises that since no service charges are levied by the Bank for use of ATM Card in their Bank, the dispute raised by respondent was not a consumer complaint in terms of Section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act, 1986. Our attention has been drawn to ATM User’s Manual issued by the bank which lays down some guidelines for transaction cost. It enjoins that card holders’ account was liable to be debited with fee if the transaction is made at a ATM not owned by State Bank Group but for the ATM owned by other Banks. This fact, however, cannot be lost sight of that even when there was no delivery of cash on use of ATM Card in other Bank, a sum of Rs. 148/- was debited to the account of the respondent. The other defence taken by the Bank to cover deficiency raised, was that it was for some technical snag in the system of ATM equipment that despite use of ATM Card the amount sought for withdrawal could not be delivered and Bank would seek refuse behind the User’s Manual which stipulates that Banks shall not be liable for any loss caused by a technical breakdown of the payment system. Petitioner Bank being a premier Bank has widest network across the country. One can, just imagine the suffering of a person who, during his visit to other State, in expectation of getting cash uses ATM Card and his object is frustrated. Though we are told by respondent that he made complaint with the Bank on 22.12.2004 and 03.01.2005 as well, counsel for petitioner urges that there was no evidence about any complaint having been registered with Bank on 22.12.2004. Both fora below have recorded a finding of fact on this score, for which there cannot be reappraisal in the revision. Defence of the Bank that shortly after complaint was received, the amount was credited to the account of the respondent, does not put the Bank in a position to avoid its liability to compensate respondent for the miseries which he suffered. District Forum, rightly, made petitioner Bank answerable to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for damages suffered by the respondent, in addition to payment of Rs. 148/- realized as service charges from the respondent. There being no good ground to unsuit the respondent, revision petition is dismissed with no order as to cost.