Heard. 2. When the present revision petition came up for hearing for the first time before this Commission on 24.08.2012, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file copy of the pass-book as well as the pay-in-slips showing the deposit of Rs.50,000/- made by the petitioner/ complainant with the respondent/ opposite party Bank. Thereafter, the petitioner was given number of opportunities to file these documents. Till date, the petitioner has not filed the original pay-in-slips nor has filed the complete copy of the pass-book. However, petitioner has relied upon only on one page of the extract of the so called pass-book. 3. Petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (in short, he District Forum against the respondent alleging that he has given a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the Manager of the respondent Bank for depositing the same in his account. He claims that there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Bank. 4. The consumer complaint was contested by the respondent. Vide order dated 07.09.2010, District Forum after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint of the petitioner and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of unlawful transfer of amount by the respondent bank in its favour along with a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondent filed an appeal before the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission. State Commission, vide its impugned order dated 30.05.2012, allowed the appeal of the respondent and dismissed the complaint. 6. Hence, the present revision petition. 7. The main plea of the counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent vide its letter dated 02.09.2009 has admitted that petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- and the same should be paid to the customer. 8. The letter dated 02.09.2009 makes an interesting reading as it states that e have contacted the customer. He has informed that the proof of deposit is itself lying in the pass book. He has no other proof. 9. Admittedly, in the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to place on record the pass book as well as pay in slips but the same has not been filed till date despite various opportunities granted to the petitioner. 10. Be that as it may, the State Commission vide its order has held: his is a case where complainant as tried to derive undue benefit by resorting to the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, may be by conniving with an official of the bank, who committed fraud with the bank. It is not in dispute that complainant had been maintaining an agricultural credit card account with OP. It is admitted that he withdrew Rs.60,000/- on 12.10.2007 which find reflected in his copy of pass book placed on the file by counsel for the appellant. Thereafter, he states that he deposited Rs.50,000/- between 05.11.2007 to 10.11.2007 and thus his balance was raised to Rs.98,7803/- and later when he wanted to withdraw the amount, learnt that an official of the Bank had transferred the amount from his account without his authority. Perusal of pass book shows that the credit of Rs.50,000/- was by way of transfer and not cash deposit. If an official of the bank by playing fraud with the bank transferred some amount from the account of the bank to the account of a complainant the amount would not belong to the complainant. This is what where complainant is trying to derive undue benefit of illegal transfer by an official of the bank in the account of the complainant, which complainant is trying to derive benefit by stating the amount to be belonging to him. When the amount did not belong to him actually and was credited in his account by an official by playing fraud with the bank. The bank has every right to withhold the said amount. Thus District Forum wrongly allowed the complaint of the complainant. Hence, the impugned order under challenge is not sustainable. Accordingly, appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed 11. Since, there is no proof of deposit of Rs.50,000/- in cash by the petitioner with the respondent Bank, we concur with the findings given by the State Commission and agree with the detailed observations made by the State Commission as quoted above. 12. Under these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is dismissed accordingly.