Heard. 2. Case of Petitioner/ complainant is that he has been provided ATM Card in respect of his account in Respondent/ Bank from which some outsider took out Rs.15,000/- from the ATM. The report was made to the respondent and the respondent informed that the amount had been taken out of the ATM. 3. Further, the report of the incident was also made to the police in which it was stated that since he was operating the ATM for the first time he had taken the help of the guard posted there but he also could not take out any money from the booth. When the complaint was made to the respondent in the evening and the ATM was examined, it was found that a sum of Rs.15,000/- had been withdrawn from the said account. Respondent has made further inquiries and which revealed that the transaction was successful and, in that connection, switch report of the transaction, electronic journal report giving the details of transactions and copy of the bank letter dated 22.09.2008 were filed. 4. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sagar (Madhya Pradesh) (in short,the District Forum vide its order dated 28.07.2009 dismissed the complaint. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, he State Commission which also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 24.11.2010. 6. We have heard the petitioner who had argued the matter in person and the learned counsel for the respondent. 7. The State Commission in its impugned order has observed: hough the appellant alleges deficiency in service by the bank, circumstances do not rule out that out of ignorance the appellant had given his card to another person for operation. In any case deficiency in service on the part of the Bank has not been made out as the operation was successful for which ATM is provided. We do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed 8. We fully agree with the reasoning given by the District Forum as well as by the State Commission that there was no deficiency on the part of the respondent. 9. Under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, (for short, ct this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission only where such State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 9. Honle Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed; lso, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora 10. Thus, no jurisdiction or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of power under section 21 (b) of the Act, since two Fora below have given cogent reasons in their orders, which does not call for any interference nor they suffer from any infirmity or revisional exercise of jurisdiction. 11. It is not that every order passed by the Fora below is to be challenged by a litigant even when the same is based on sound reasoning. 12. Under these circumstances, the present petition being without any legal basis is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.