Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and orders firstly passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar in complaint case no. 169 / 2011 and thereafter order dated 20.04.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in first appeal no. 503 / 2012, the original complainant has approached this Commission purportedly under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Bank in regard to the transactions which were conducted by certain person(s) in connection with the Debit cum ATM card of the complainant. Aggrieved by the same, complainant filed appeal before the State Commission which was highly belated, i.e., having been filed after a delay of 220 days. The State Commission dismissed the appeal on both the grounds of delay as well as on merits. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner / complainant and have considered his submissions. He submits that the findings of the Fora below are not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence and material produced on record, much less it being in consonance with the settled legal position. We have noted down these submissions only to be rejected because the Fora below have given cogent reasons as to why the Bank cannot be held responsible for any deficiency in service. The State Commission appreciating the matter, made the following observations :- ven on merit, there is no force in this appeal. While disposing of the complaint, the District Forum has taken into consideration the fact that after the misplacement of the ATM-cum-Debit card bearing No.521802010100555 of the complainant on 13.01.2011, some unknown person used the same for shopping from different retails for Rs.9.90, Rs.1337.45, Rs.7172/-, Rs.6999/-, Rs.2531/-, Rs.2570/- and Rs.2501/-. FIR No. 43 dated 19.1.2011 was also lodged with the Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar. Thereafter, complainant had approached the District Forum and has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties that POS, from where shopping was made by the unknown persons, were bound to compare the signature of the card holder from the backside of the card. But in the FIR it has been mentioned that there was no signature on the backside of the ATM-cum-Debit card of the complainant. Further the complainant had not impleaded the POSs as party to the complainant. Therefore, finding no substance in the complaint, the District Forum has dismissed the complaint vide its impugned order, which does not call for any interference in this appeal. 3. In the FIR, complainant herself admitted that the debit cum ATM card issued did not bear her signatures. Therefore, there was no question of any agency least the respondent bank tallying the same with the signature of the complainant at the time the debit-cum-ATM card was used. In our view, going by the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is justified on record and suffers from no illegality, material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error, which warrants interference of this Commission. Dismissed.