Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 31.10.2011 passed by Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in appeal nos. 415 & 421/2011. The appeals before the State Commission were filed against the order dated 29.06.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kawardha in complaint No. 57 / 2010 by which order the District Forum directed the respondent bank to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of deficiency in service within one months from the date of the order with the stipulation that if the amount is not paid within the stipulated period the awarded amount shall attract interest @6% p.a. In the appeal the State Commission dismissed the complaint. 2. We have heard Mr. R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions. He would assail the order passed by the Fora below primarily on the ground that the same is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances and the evidence and material produced on record. We must reject this contention because the State Commission has given cogent reasons of making the said finding that the concerned institute to which the bank draft was submitted later on traced out the said bank draft and the petitioner was allowed to take the examination which he undertook without any fee or charge. In our opinion, the order passed by the State Commission is based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances and the evidence and material brought on record and suffers from no illegality, material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error, which warrants interference of this Commission. Dismissed. However, the question whether in the given case, the petitioner is a consumer or not is to be considered in a better case.