Even today, the petitioner has not appeared though the notice was issued to him for today hearing. We have already expressed our anguish about the conduct of the petitioner in making wild and baseless allegations against the functionaries of the District Forum, State Commission and lastly against this Commission. It appears that he took the liberty because the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act 1972 are not attracted to the proceedings which are filed before the Consumer Fora established under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This is a state of utter helplessness that we can express as the petitioner would to scot-free for making such unfounded allegations against the Consumer Fora. We must, therefore, stop here with the hope that some-day it would occur to the framers of the law that the proceedings before the Consumer Fora, are almost at par with the Proceedings before. 2. Now, coming to the merits of the petition, challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 20.07.2011 passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in appeal no. 1617/2011. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 20.05.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Seshadripuram in complaint No. 2693/ 2009. After the trial of the complaint, the District Forum had granted relief to the complainant / petitioner by directing the opposite party Bank to take steps to remove his name from CIBIL on regularisation of the personal account by the complainant. Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by the State Commission in limine at the stage of admission by a well-reasoned order. 3. Mr. Rahul Malhotra, counsel for the respondent Bank states that the directions given in the order of the District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission could not be complied with as it was dependent on the complainant regularisation his personal loan account which has not been done by him so far. We, therefore, see no illegality, material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error in the impugned order which warrants interference of this Commission. Dismissed.