PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER

Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 4.10.2010 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (tate Commission in short) upholding the order dated 4.5.2010 passed by the Second Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is delay of 480 days in filing the revision petition. The petitioner has filed an application for condonation of this delay. It is submitted in the application that initially the petitioner challenged the impugned order before the Honle High Court of Karnataka through a writ petition bearing No.29949/2011 but later on, the same was allowed to be withdrawn vide its order dated 26.9.2011. While permitting the petitioner to withdraw the petition, liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach this Commission. However, even if the filing of this writ petition is taken into consideration, the delay from 26.9.2011 till the filing of the revision petition on 26.4.2012 before this Commission has not been explained satisfactorily. In view of this, we are not inclined to condone the delay and the revision petition can be dismissed on this ground alone. However, we have looked into the merits as well. 3. Briefly stated, the petitioner was the original complainant and the respondent was the opposite party before the District Forum. The petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. When the matter was posted for filing written version, the OP filed a Memo through his Advocate in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the dispute had been settled amicably between the parties. The District Forum accepted the said Memo as the matter was settled out of court and closed the file vide its aforesaid order. The petitioner, however, carried the matter before the State Commission by filing an appeal against the order of the District Forum. The State Commission vide its impugned order upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. 4. We have heard Mr. Raman Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner and perused the record. The State Commission has recorded the following reasons in support of the impugned order:- . It is alleged by the complainant that OP is engaged in unfair trade practice and caused deficiency in service due to which his reputation and status is lost in the society, not only that for no fault of his he was made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Hence he filed the complaint. Of course OP appeared through Advocate, it appears when the matter was set out for filing of the defence OP filed a memo intimating the settlement out of court. On going through the said memo it is stated by the OP that all the entries are reversed, outstanding amount is shown as nil. This fact is intimated to the complainant through letter dated 20.4.2010 and o Due Certificatetowards the credit card has been given. It is further stated that they have also intimated to CIBIL to correct the records with regard to the entry of the name of the complainant in the list and delete as the matter is settled hence sought for closing the complaint. 9. The DF on going through the said memo which is filed in presence of the complainant Advocate wherein no objection is raised by the learned counsel for the complainant thought that matter has been settled and there is nothing to be decided between the parties. It also concluded that there are no outstanding issues to be resolved between the parties which are pending for consideration. Hence closed the matter as settled. 5. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. There is no material put up before us by the petitioner which would call for our interference with the impugned order. We also do not see any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The revision petition being devoid of any substance is, therefore, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.