PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.06.2012 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 698 of 2011 M/s./ Saptami Kuries & Loans & Anr. Vs. Jayan M.R. & Anr. by which, appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainants/respondents deposited Rs.50,000/- with OP/petitioner no. 1 on 25.6.1997 for a period of 8 years who promised to pay interest @ 12% p.a. and issued fixed deposit receipt no. 40. OP paid interest for 2 years and thereafter neither principal amount nor interest was paid on maturity. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that alleged receipt no. 40 was a forged one and further submitted that receipt no. 40 was related to one T.R. Sindhu who deposited Rs.20,000/- on 20.9.1994 and that amount was returned on maturity on 26.9.1995. It was further submitted that complaint was filed by the Power of Attorney which was also a fake document and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to return the amount of FDR with 9% p.a. interest. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of proof of the fact that so-called receipt no. 40 issued in favour of complainant was forged one, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that receipt no. 40 was issued in favour of T.R. Sindhu who deposited Rs.20,000/- on 20.9.1994 which was repaid on 26.9.1995. Perusal of refund order dated 26.9.1995 reveals that only 20,000/- has been refunded, whereas as per deposit receipt dated 20.9.1994, Rs.20,000/- were to be refunded with 12% p.a. interest. In such circumstances, no reliance can be placed on alleged FDR dated 20.9.1994 for Rs.20,000/- and payment voucher. 6. Petitioner has not adduced any evidence in support of his contention that FDR No. 40 for Rs.50,000/- issued in favour of complainant was forged one. Onus was on the petitioner to prove that aforesaid FDR was forged one and as he failed to discharge his onus, learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint and learned State Commission rightly dismissed appeal filed by the petitioner. 7. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Consequently, Revision Petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to cost.