Petitioner, which was the opposite party before the District Forum has filed this Revision Petition against the order dated 17.4.2007 passed by Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes -2- Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No.1452 of 2004 thereby upholding the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rangareddy (for short ‘District Forum’) in complaint no.117/2001. By the impugned order, the fora below have directed the petitioner to pay the cheque amount of Rs.80,000/- to the respondent along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till the filing of the complaint and, thereafter, @ 6% p.a. till the date of realization; Rs.5,000/- have been awarded by way of compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs. Facts: Respondent/complainant no.1 and 2 who are husband and wife jointly opened a SB account in the petitioner bank. Respondent deposited a cheque bearing No. 539000 dated 15.05.2001 for Rs.80,000/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, Sahebnagar Branch for collection on 18.07.2011. The above mentioned cheque was dishonored by the payee bank with the endorsement ‘Insufficient Funds’ on 20.7.2001. Petitioner sent the unpaid/dishonored cheque along with the returning memo to the respondent on 27.7.2001 by -3- courier through M/s Flight Dispatch Courier Services which apparently not encashed. Complainants approached the petitioner bank to enquire about the fate of cheque, for the first time, on 16.08.2001, on which date the complainant was informed that the said cheque was dishonored and returned by the payee bank. Petitioner, thereafter, took up the matter with the courier company vide letter dated 24.8.2001 informing the respondent that the said cheque has been lost while in transit. Inspite of efforts, petitioner could not locate the lost cheque. Petitioner issued Statement of Account to the respondent certifying that the cheque deposited by him was returned ‘Unpaid’ for ‘Insufficient Funds’. Respondent, thereafter, sent a legal notice to which reply was sent by the petitioner. Thereafter, respondents filed the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner bank to pay the cheque amount of Rs.80,000/- to the complainants/respondents along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit of the cheque till the date of filing of complainant and -4- @ 6% from the date of the complaint till realization. Rs.5000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.1000/- towards costs. Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Bank on the ground of ‘deficiency in service’ could be burdened with some compensation but it could not be made liable to pay the entire cheque amount. In support of this submission, counsel for the petitioner relies upon two judgments of this Commission in “CANARA BANK VS. SUDHIR AHUJA, I (2007) CPJ 1 (NC)” & “STATE BANK OF PATIALA VS. RAJENDER LAL & ANR., IV (2003) CPJ 53 (NC)”. We find substance in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. This Commission in Sudhir Ahuja’s case (supra) has held as under: 3. Relying on the decision in State Bank of Patiala v. Rajender Lal and Anr. IV (2003) CPJ 53 (NC), the submission advanced by Mr. Pankaj Gupta for petitioner is that a bank on ground of deficiency in service can be burdened with some compensation but it cannot be made to pay the entire amount of cheque and the order of State Commission being erroneous deserves to be set aside. On the -5- other hand, the submission advanced by Mr. Sushant Mukund for respondent is that the defence of the bank was that the amount of the cheque in question had been received by the respondent but from the affidavit dated 12.1.2004 filed before the State Commission by the respondent it is established that the amount of cheque was not received by the respondent and the remedy for realization of the amount of cheque in question by the respondent has, now, become barred by limitation. Deposit of the cheque for collection of amount thereof on 25.1.2001 is admitted by the petitioner Bank. Since the amount of cheque was not credited in said account nor the cheque which seem to have been misplaced in transit, was returned to the respondent, the petitioner bank was certainly deficient in service. It is not in dispute that the complaint was filed before the District Forum on 25.4.2001. Copy of written statement filed by the bank on record would show that it was verified on 20.9.2001. Written version, thus, must have been filed thereafter sometime in September, 2001 itself. Obviously, by the time the complaint and written version were filed the respondent had become aware of the loss of cheque. Remedy of the respondent to file suit based on original consideration of the cheque was within limitation period by then. For recovery of amount of a cheque, a complaint would bot lie under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ’Act’). Therefore, on ground of deficiency in service the bank can be ordered to pay the compensation and not the entire amount of the cheque. To the same effect is the ratio of the decision in Rajender Lal’s case (supra). Submission referred to above, advanced on behalf of respondent has no relevance on the issue on hand. Order of State -6- Commission requiring the petitioner to pay the entire amount of the cheque in question cannot be legally sustained. In the facts and circumstance of case, we quantify the amount of compensation payable to the respondent at Rs.5,000./-. Against the decision of this Commission in Rajender Lal’s case (supra), State Bank of Patiala had filed an Appeal before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 30.7.2009. Both the decisions being of co-equal Bench are binding on us. Otherwise also we respectfully agree with the law laid down that for ‘deficiency in service, petitioner bank could not be made liable to pay the entire amount of cheque in question. For the reasons stated above, this revision petition is allowed. Order of the State Commission directing the petitioner to pay the entire cheque amount is set aside. For deficiency in service, petitioner is directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the respondents/complainants within six weeks from today, failing which the petitioner shall become liable to pay the interest @ 6% p.a. on the
-7- amount of Rs.15,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. | 
