JUSTICE J M MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. The whole controversy centres around the question whether Jajula Veeranjaneyulu complainant/petitioner had withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the Bank ? 2. The complainant/petitioner had opened a Savings Bank Account with the State Bank of India the opposite party/ respondent under savings bank account no. 11509282941 on 08.12.2008. The complainant was having a credit balance of Rs.1,87,530.12 paise in his account. Thereafter on enquiry it transpired that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was transferred from his account to another account bearing no. 030344251858 which is the joint account of Mr. K S M Prasad, (who committed suicide on 08.01.2009), cashier wife and her brother at Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. The grouse of the complainant/petitioner is that he never authorised any person much less the opposite party/respondent to transfer the amount from his account. He also lodged a complaint on 19.01.2009 in this context. However, the opposite party/respondent insisted that the amount was withdrawn by the complainant/petitioner himself and not by somebody else. 3. Ultimately, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party/respondent to pay Rs.1,50,000/- together with interest as applicable in the case of savings banks account from time to time. It also awarded Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs. 4. Aggrieved by that order, the State Bank of India preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission the complainant/petitioner filed the present revision petition. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He vehemently argued that the petitioner never authorised any person to withdraw the said amount. He argued that the deficiency of the petitioner stands proved and therefore, the order passed by the District Forum should be restored. He pointed out that Mr Suresh Kumar, Chief Manager of the State Bank of India was appointed as an Inquiry Officer (in short, he IO and after receipt of the complaint filed by the complainant, the IO came to the conclusion that the above transactions with regard to withdrawal of the amount he was unable to give his opinion whether the said transaction was genuine or not. 6. The record also goes to show that the OP/petitioner sent all the withdrawal forms together with the account opening form and the complaint dated 19.01.2009 of the complainant to the examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of India, Hyderabad. The Government expert came to the conclusion that the signature of the withdrawal forms and account opening form and the letter dated 19.01.2009 were signed by the one and the same person, i.e., the complainant himself. Due to this signature, the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was withdrawn from his account. 7. This piece of evidence towers upon the rest. It is pertinent to note that the complainant did not produce any evidence in rebuttal and no expert evidence from the side of the complainant saw the light of the day In view of this solid and unflappable evidence the case of the complainant pales into insignificance. The case of the OP/respondent is supported by cogent and plausible evidence. The order passed by the State Commission suffers from no flaw. 8. It is thus clear that the petitioner has no bone to pluck with the respondent. The revision petition is ill founded and therefore dismissed at the time of admission.