This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the original complainant, against the order dated 5.10.2011 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench Tirupathi (tate Commissionfor short) by which the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/opposite party challenging the order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nellore by which the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint of the petitioner and directed the respondent to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint. Vide its impugned order the State Commission the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint with cost computed at Rs.2,000/- payable by the petitioner. It is in these circumstances, that the present revision petition has been filed. 2. We have heard Mr. C.P. Suresh, Advocate appearing for the petitioner and perused the record. 3. The only point for consideration before us in this case is as to whether the respondent Bank committed any deficiency in service in the collection of the cheque deposited by the petitioner with it. It is not under dispute that the petitioner presented the cheque in question dated 20.6.2007 for Rs.50,000/- with the respondent Bank on 17.12.2007. The cheque was valid upto 20.12.2007 and it was an outstation cheque drawn on Allahabad Bank, Hyderabad. The State Commission while reversing the finding of the District Forum held that if there was any delay, it was the complainant who was guilty of delay in presentation of cheque just three days prior to the expiry of the cheque. More so, when it was an outstation cheque, he ought to have presented the same well in advance to enable the OP Bank to collect the amount. The complainant cannot present the cheque at the 11th hour and then complain that there was delay which would constitute deficiency in service. In addition to this, the State Commission has also recorded the following reason in support of the impugned order: - e may also state that the complaint for the reasons not known did not implead Allahabad Bank, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad as a party which had returned the cheque on the ground that it was stale. Appellant could prove by irrefutable documentary evidence on the day when the complainant had presented the cheque it has sent on the very same day for collection of amount to Hyderabad. Subsequent events were not in the hands of appellant bank in order to find out nor any deficiency in service attributable to Allahabad Bank at Hyderabad. Importantly, he has suppressed the document which viz. , cheque return memo, obviously he was afraid that entire case falls two ground. Considering the circumstances, we are unable to fix liability on the appellant bank nor we can say that there was deficiency in service on its part. The complainant is guilty of his own acts by presenting the cheque just three days before expiry. We do not subscribe to the view expressed by the Distt. Forum in this regard. 4. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Admittedly only three daystime was left before the expiry of the cheque which was an outstation cheque, when it was presented by the petitioner before the respondent Bank. The petitioner should have known that he himself was to be blamed for such extraordinary delay in presentation of this cheque and as such he had subjected himself to grave risk and if the validity period expired before the cheque could reach the payee bank which was at Hyderabad, the petitioner himself is to be blamed for this delay. The respondent Bank could not be held responsible for the same since it had dispatched the cheque well on time after its presentation for collection. Regarding the non-joinder of the payee Allahabad Bank, Hyderabad with a view to prove the allegation regarding the delay on the part of the respondent Bank, learned counsel submitted that only an oral request was made to this effect before the District Forum and as such it was not possible to produce any formal order of the District Forum regarding refusal to accept such request. We are not convinced with the explanation. The District Forum apparently did not appreciate the factual position properly while holding the respondent Bank deficient in service. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order which is based on the undisputed facts and the correct legal position. 5. Consequently, the revision petition fails. There shall be no order as to cost.