Learned counsel for the respondent has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal, Kolkata dated 18.10.2012 whereby the State Commission dismissed the Miscellaneous Application no.247/2012 of the petitioner claiming that the consumer complaint was not maintainable in view of the Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and also because it was not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has submitted that in view of the order of Three Members Bench of National Commission dated 13.05.2013 in bunch of revision petitions including R.P. No.412/2011, he does not press his plea against the dismissal of plea U/s 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order dismissing miscellaneous application suffers from material irregularity because the State Commission while dismissing the application has not answered the plea of the petitioner that the consumer complaint was not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. 5. On perusal of record, we find that the plea of the petitioner regarding maintainability of the complaint before the State Commission on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction has not been addressed by the State Commission. Thus, it is evident that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity inasmuch as the State Commission has failed to exercise its jurisdiction to decide the plea of the maintainability on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The revision petition is, therefore, disposed of with the direction that after filing of written statement by the petitioner, the State Commission before proceeding further in the matter first shall decide the plea of pecuniary jurisdiction. No order as to costs.