Heard. 2. Petitioner, who was the complainant before the District Forum filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ct against Respondent/O.P. seeking compensation and/or damage for amount of Rs.9,50,000/- for harassment and mental agony due to non-return of the deed in question in time. 3. The complaint was contesting by the respondent/opposite party 4. . The District Forum vide order dated 31.10.2011, allowed the compliant and directed the respondent to pay sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost to the petitioner. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, respondent filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (for short, tate Commission. The State Commission, vide its impugned order dated 26.9.2012 allowed the appeal of the respondent and dismissed the complaint. 6. Being aggrieved, present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. 7. The main grievance of the petitioner is that she has repaid the entire loan in the month of July, 2006. However, documents pertaining to original sale deed etc. were not returned to her for a period of two years. Ultimately the same was returned only on 20.8.2008. 8. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent that petitioner had filed a complaint before the Ombudsman of the Bank also, where the matter was amicably settled. Now, by filing the present petition, petitioner has misused the process of law. 9. State Commission in its impugned order observed; dmitted position is that the Complainant availed of a loan from the O.P. Bank against mortgaging her flat as collateral security and subsequently she repaid the said loan. The Complainant alleged that after liquidation of the said loan the Appellant-Bank did not return the original title deed of the said flat to the Complainant which the Bank kept in its custody towards collateral security while sanctioning as well as disbursing the said loan, in spite of repeated correspondences and knocking by the Complainant to the Bank. The Bank, in reply, stated that it thought it would be prudent to hand over the title deed of the said flat to the Complainant personally and not by the postal service or courier service. Therefore, the Complainant was to collect the said title deed from the Bank. But the Complainant did not visit the Bank nor send any authorized person to collect the same. Subsequently, the complainant lodged a complaint before the banking ombudsman and the said authority disposed of the case directing the Complainant to collect the said title deed from the Bank in view of the assurance given by the Bank to hand over the title deed to the Complainant. It appears from the record that the Complainant sent a letter dated 04.08.2008 stating that she would collect the said title deed on 11.08.2008, but afterwards she authorized a person on 13.08.2008 who collected the said title deed on 30.08.2008. It is evident that the Complainant failed to keep her own words regarding the date of collection of the title deed. Further, the Complainant also failed to produce any document wherefrom it would appear that she made correspondences with the Bank prior to approaching the banking ombudsman towards the return of the title deed to her. Therefore, the Bank allegation regarding inaction on the part of the Complainant towards collection of the title deed from the custody of the Bank remained uncontroverted. In view of the discussion made hereinabove we find no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. The Ld. District Forum was not justifiable in allowing the complaint. In the result the appeal is allowed on contest without cost. The impugned judgment is set aside. Complaint is dismissed. 10. After going through the impugned order, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the same. Moreover, title deed has already been returned to the petitioner. Consequently, the present revision is not maintainable and same is hereby dismissed. 11. Parties shall bear their own cost.