Aggrieved by the order dated 17.08.2010 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal -2- Commission, Mumbai (in short, he State Commission in first appeal No.A/10/394, the original complainant has filed this petition in order to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Commission under Section21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 31.3.2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Mumbai Suburban in complaint case No. 450 of 2009 filed by the appellant-petitioner. The District Consumer Forum has partly allowed the complaint because most of the grievance of the complainant put forth by him in the complaint had been suitably redressed by reversing the debit entry into his account. The State Commission by a well reasoned order has upheld the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal but saddled the appellant with cost of Rs.2,500/-. We have heard the petitioner in person and have considered his submissions. He does not dispute that his grievance in regard to wrong debit entries in his account was redressed by the respondent-bank by making reverse entry soon after receipt of the notice of the complaint. It appears that thereafter the complainant wanted to put -3- forth another grievance in relation to an entry made in his account for ATM transaction of Rs.9,500/-, which according to the complainant, was not completed as he did not receive the amount. He wanted to file an affidavit in the pending complaint which has been mostly satisfied. Thereafter, he filed another complaint bearing No.509 of 2010, which according to him has been erroneously dismissed by the concerned District Forum vide order dated 29.10.2010. If that is so, the petitioner would be free to challenge the said order before the appropriate forum. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we are of the view that the impugned order so far as it has dismissed the appeal cannot be interfered for any reasons but having regard to the status of the complainant and the petty amounts involved in the transaction, the State Commission would have been advised to leave the parties to bear their own cost rather than penalizing the appellant-petitioner with cost of Rs.2,500/-. We consider it appropriate to waive off the cost so imposed by the State Commission. With this modification, the order of the State Commission is upheld. -4- The revision petition is dismissed. The application filed before this Commission is misconceived and is dismissed accordingly without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the correction of the order dated 29.10.2010 passed by the District Forum in the later complaint No. 509 of 2010.