None appears for petitioner. There has been a delay of 10 days in filing revision petition for which no condonation has been sought by petitioner and hence revision petition merits dismissal on this point alone. However case of petitioner on merits has also been considered. Factual matrix as alleged by petitioner are that on 1.10.2004 on use of ATM card for withdrawl of Rs. 5000/- from his saving bank account which he had with respondent bank, money was not delivered and it was informed “Sorry unable to process”. However respondent bank on 30.10.2004 notwithstanding there being no withdrawl of money by petitioner on 1.10.2004 on use of ATM card, debited aforesaid amount from account of petitioner. Alleging deficiency on part of respondent bank, a consumer complaint was filed which on consideration of pleadings of parties accepting complaint directed respondent bank to deposit Rs. 5000/- with account of petitioner. However when matter was carried in appeal by respondent bank, State Commission having considered whole gamut of issue noticed that from ATM card it appeared that Rs. 5000/- had been withdrawn from petitioner on 5.10.2004 at 8.05 minutes. Likewise ATM ID pertaining to this transaction had been produced which contains withdrawl of Rs. 5000/- from account of petitioner. However due to inadvertence respondent bank debited Rs. 5000/- from petitioner account on 30.10.2004. We agree with conclusive finding of State Commission that due to inadvertent error of respondent bank, petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of an unconscionable bargain plea and in that view we find no error with finding of State Commission and revision petition on merits also being bereft of substance is dismissed.