PER MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. Delay of 8 days is condoned subject to just exceptions. The Complainant had deposited a cheque for Rs.2,25,000/- with the Opposite Party-Bank for clearance, but the same was returned on the ground that the account holder did not have sufficient funds. The cheque was again sent for clearance on 27.10.2008, but it was again returned back on account of defect in the surname. The cheque was presented third time on 4.11.2008, but in the Opposite Party no.1-Bank ink had fallen on the cheque on account of which the relevant entries could not be read and the cheque could not be cleared. The Opposite Party-Bank sent the cheque back to the Complainant vide letter dated 18.11.2008, but the Complainant refused to accept the same. According to the Complainant she could not receive the payment of the said cheque amounting to Rs.2,25,000/- on account of negligence of the Opposite Party and as such she claimed the amount of the said cheque with interest and compensation. The District Forum did not allow the claim of the Complainant regarding payment of the cheque amount but awarded 12% interest on the cheuqe amount of Rs.2,25,000/- from 4.11.2008 to 14.12.2008, besides the cost of Rs.1000/- was awarded in favour of the Complainant . The Complainant challenged the order of the District Forum before the State Commission. The State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum but awarded Rs.5000/- in addition towards mental agony faced by the Complainant. The Complainant being not satisfied with the order of fora below has come in revision against concurrent findings of two fora below. The admitted position is that the ink had fallen on the cheque in the Opposite Party –Bank on account of which the relevant entries in the cheque became unreadable, on account of which the cheque could not be encashed. The Opposite Party –Bank had returned the cheque to the Complainant with a request to obtain another cheque from the party, but the Complainant refused to accept the same. It appears that in the process of handling the cheque and in the course of ordinary business, ink had fallen on the cheque. Until and unless it is proved that the said act was on account of malafide on the part of the Opposite Party –Bank, it can not be strictly said to be a case of negligence since it appears that what had happened was in the normal course of ordinary business and such things do happen some time. Accordingly, Bank had asked the Complainant to get another cheque, but the Complainant refused to take back the cheque. We have gone through the complaint. It is not the case of the Complainant that he had approached the drawer of the said cheque who had refused to issue another cheque for the same amount, nor it is the case of the Complainant that the amount of the said cheque could not be recovered in the set of facts from the drawer or that the drawer had refused to issue a fresh cheque. If the cheque issued by the drawer is not encashed, the liability of the drawer does not cease and the amount of the cheque can be recovered from the drawer. In this view of the mater, the Complainant, in our opinion, was not entitled to receive the amount of the said cheque from the Bank and the fora below had very rightly allowed interest for the period the said cheque was presented till the complainant was intimated about the fallen of ink on the cheque. The State Commission had awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- on account of mental agony faced by the Complainant. In view of this, we do not find any merit in this revision and the revision is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.