1. V. Nagamani & Ch. Krishna Rao are husband and wife. They have filed the case against the same Respondents. The facts are similar and, therefore, this order will decide both these cases in a common judgment. I take the facts from RP/363/2013 filed by V. Nagamani. The Complainant Smt. V. Nagamani who has invested Rs.1,00,000/- with the OPs on 06.12.2008. The agent of OP issued an acknowledgement slip and thereafter a debenture certificate was issued by OP and the date of redemption was 22.01.2010 for a period of 12 months. Accordingly, the Complainant approached the OP on 22.01.2010 to get back her amount on which she was informed by OP that only she deposited Rs.10,000/- only ; but due to technical error it was wrongly reflected as Rs.1,00,000/- in the debenture certificate and which can be rectified. Hence, money was not paid to the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, istrict Forum. 2. The District Forum allowed the Complaint by observing material discrepancies of acknowledgement slip produced by the complainant and it copy filed by the OPs. Thus concluded that it was a fraud by OPs in collusion with the staff and their agents. 3. Against the order of the District Forum the OP preferred an Appeal in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, tate Commission. 4. The State Commission heard both the parties and allowed the appeal by modifying the relief of redemption value as Rs.10,000/- and upholding the order of the District Forum in regard to the reliefs of interest, compensation and costs and The Respondent is liberty to approach competent court for the claim of disputed redemption value. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission complainant filed this Revision Petition. 6. We heard the counsel of both the parties who have argued vehemently.. There is a delay of 27 days in filling both the Revision Petitions. The reasons stated in application for condonation of delay filed by the Petitioner satisfied us. Therefore, the delay is condoned. 7. On merit the debenture amount is the subject matter of this petition. The Complainant contends that she deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with the OPs whereas the OPs submitted that she has deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/-. The OP contended that only 10 debentures were issued with serial No. from 66759395 till 66759404 and value of total debentures was Rs.10,000/- and the complainant altered it as to Rs.1,00,000/-. Further OPs contention was the original bonds were tampered therefore, the complainant informed them that the debenture certificate was misplaced and she submitted notarized affidavit stating that the original debenture certificate was misplaced. 8. Such false stories can be built at any stage. It is strange that why OP should have accepted huge amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by cheque instead of cash? Whether OP was blind while accepting cash and issuing the acknowledgment slip by hand written and issuing the printed debenture certificate for Rs.1,00,000/- . Such submissions which do not sustain OPs contention that he received only Rs.10,000/-. Such cash transactions certainly lead to loss of Govt exchequer in the form of Income Tax as well deceiving the complainant also. 9. We have perused the Acknowledgement slip and debenture certificate issued by OPs. The Debenture Certificate which is a computerised print out mentions as ebenture of Rs.1000/- each he redemption value as Rs.1,00,000/- and umber of debentures 100would further clarify the facts. 10. Similarly the Acknowledgement Slip No.5343942 dated 6/12/2008 which is hand written by authorised signatory of OPs clearly show the debenture amount as Rs.1,00,000/- and No. of units as 1,000/-. 11. Considering the entirety of this case which confirms that each of the Complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- towards debentures and not Rs.10,000/-. It is not a material error in writing but it a bad intention of OPs and a case of deficiency in service . Therefore, we allow these revision petitions set aside the orders of the State Commission and restore the orders of the District Forum. Parties are directed to bear their own cost.