Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 12th of January, 2010 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1737 of 2009. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the petitioner herein against order dated 5th of November, 2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala, by which the said Forum had -2- dismissed the complaint of the complainant, alleging deficiency on the part of the respondent-Bank primarily on the ground that the complaint so filed was barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the appeal an attempt was made to explain the circumstances in which the complaint could not be filed within the prescribed limitation and one reason was that the petitioner learnt about the wrongful disbursement of the amount of Rs.3,10,000/- to Smt. Jatinder Kaur based on certain forged instruments from the account of her deceased son, to which the complainant was entitled as the rightful successor of her deceased son and that thereafter she pursued the matter with the Banking Ombudsman and also with the police. The State Commission considered those circumstances in quite depth but going by the legal position settled by catena of decisions by the Supreme Court and this Commission, however, found that the complaint was filed much after the prescribed period of limitation and without satisfactory explanation on the strength of which the delay in filing the complaint could be condoned. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-complainant has filed the present proceedings. -3- We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent-Bank and have considered their submissions. Both the fora below have considered the question as to the maintainability of the complaint. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances as pleaded before them, in our opinion also there is no justification warranting our interference in the said finding of the fora below. Therefore, we dismiss this revision petition. However, if the petitioner-complainant has any other forum to work out her remedy, she will be free to do so. No order as to costs.