JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. In this revision petition, the main contention of the complainant, M/s. Parakh Service Station is that, on 22.02.2007, the complainant found that the Bank debited a sum of Rs.7,80,000/- against the purchase of stocks by the complainant firm for a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- only, from IOCL, on 20.02.2007. The Bank insisted that the card was used twice, but subsequently, it rectified the said mistake. It credited the amount of Rs.3,90,000/- with the account of the complainant firm. 2. It is further alleged that the respondent Bank again, wrongly debited the sum of Rs.3,78,000/- , on 01.10.2007. The complainant denied having purchased the stock worth Rs.2,78,000/- from IOCL. The petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum vide its order dated 30.11.2000 passed the following orders :- hat Consumer Case No.78/S/2009 is allowed on contest in part against the OPs with cost of Rs.1,000/-. The complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.3,78,000/- from the OPs. The complainant is further entitled to get an order of interest @ 9% from February, 2007 to September, 2007 over Rs.3,90,000/- from the OPs. The complainant is further entitled to get a compensation of Rs.30,000/- from the OPs. The OPs No. 1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable are directed to remit the amount of Rs.3,78,000/- with accrued interest @ 9% from 01.10.2007 till the date hereunder in the account of the complainant, as maintained in their Bank, within 45 days from the date hereof, failing which, the amount of Rs.3,78,000/- + accrued interest thereof as stated above, do carry further interest of 6% from the date of filing of the instant case, i.e., 24.09.2009, till the realisation of the said amount 3. Aggrieved by that order, the OP filed appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal. 4. We have heard the counsel for the petitioners. She submitted that IOCL is a necessary party. She also pointed out that a criminal case is pending against them. 5. We see no force in these arguments. There is not even an iota of documentary evidence which may go to show that the complainant had purchased the above said goods. The District Forum rightly, observed :- o document has been placed to show that the Electronic Data Capture machine was not functioning properly/out of order, no supported document, i.e., invoice has been placed by the OPs to show that any invoice was issued by IOCL, with regard to enjoyment of the fuel on the alleged date of occurrence. The said Rakesh Tiwari has not been examined in the instant case and he is the competent witness to support the case of the defence that on the basis of the e-mail of Mr.Rakesh Tiwari that such amount of Rs.3,78,000/- was shown in the Statement of Account debiting the said amount from the Account of the complainant 6. There is no merit. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs.