Heard the Counsel for the petitioner. The complainant had opened an account knowing fully well that if he does not maintain a minimum balance, the Bank shall deduct charges for non-maintenance of minimum account. Even though, the District Forum had found that there was no deficiency on the part of the Bank, the State Commission came to the conclusion that since the account holder had already closed the account with effect from 15.09.2006 after paying closure charges and additional amount as per demand of the Bank. Therefore, there was no occasion to keep the account as dormant and send non-transactional charges in December 2006. Holding the same to be deficiency in service and taking all facts into consideration, the State Commission has already directed payment of Rs.5000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.1000/-. In our opinion the order of the State Commission is just, fair and equitable and does not call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the C P Act, 1986, as we do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed, with no order as to cost.