Aggrieved by the order dated 11.2.2010 passed by Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case No. 93 of 2001, the opposite party-bank has filed the present appeal. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and directed the appellant-bank herein to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 1.3.2000 alongwith cost of Rs.7,500/- to the complainant with the stipulation that the amount shall be paid within three months from the date of receipt of that order, failing which, the rate of interest shall stand increased to 15% per annum. 2. The facts and circumstances of the case, which led to the filing of the complaint have been amply-noted by the State Commission in sufficient detail in the impugned order and need no repetition at our end. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, we may simply notice that the complaint was filed seeking compensation of Rs.5,87,000/- under different heads alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-Bank in not crediting the sale proceeds -3- of cheque bearing No. 000060, 600320135, 3007305705 dated 1.12.1999 drawn on Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, AI Quasis, Dubai for a sum of UAE Dirhams 20,000/- (equivalent to Indian Rs.2,50,000/-) which the complainant had deposited with the opposite party-bank for collection of the payment and crediting the same in her account. The bank denied any deficiency in service on its part and explained that whatever was required from them, they did in order to realize the amount of cheque from the foreign bank. It was, however, not disputed that the amount of the cheque in question could not be received from the foreign bank and therefore, the same was not credited in the account of the complainant. It would appear that during the pendency of the complaint, the opposite party-bank made a prayer to the State Commission to amend the written version earlier filed by them pleading therein that on inquiry from the postal authorities, the Senior Manager of the Posts office vide its communication dated 26.7.2000 had informed that the postal article containing the cheque in question sent to the foreign bank was actually delivered to the said bank on 19.12.1999. The said -4- prayer did not find favour of the State Commission and the State Commission rather declined the same by observing as under:- “It was pointed out that the version was filed on 16.08.2002 and correspondences in between the parties and lawyer notices and reply notice preceded the amendment application that has been filed only on 10.12.2004. The alleged letter from the Senior manager of the Post Offices stating that the registered letter has been delivered to the addressee on 19.12.1999 is dated 26.07.2000. There is no explanation as to why the above fact was not within the knowledge of the opposite parties during the stage of correspondence and when reply notice was issued and when the version was filed. Hence the genuineness of the above letter is strongly disputed. No oral evidence has been adduced to prove the genuineness of the above letter. We find that the above aspect is a factor against the case set up by the opposite parties. The same also display the lack of proper care on the part of the opposite parties with respect to the dealings of the customers and inspite of the fact that the matter involved is Rs.2,50,000/- and more.” 3. We have heard Mr. Mr. Achal Sirohi, learned counsel representing the appellants and Mr. B. Vinod Kanna, learned counsel representing the respondents and have given our thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions. In this case, the only question which was required to be considered was as to whether the opposite party-bank had committed any negligence and/or deficiency in service regarding the above transaction, which the -5- complainant had entered with the opposite party-bank in relation to the said cheque drawn on the foreign bank. In the ordinary course, the bank was required to forward the cheque to the drawee bank in order to receive its proceeds promptly. There is no denial of the position that the bank in fact forwarded the said cheque to the foreign bank on 8.12.1999 i.e. within a week of the deposit of the cheque but the payment was not forthcoming from the foreign bank for a long period. The factum of the delivery of said cheque to the foreign bank on 19.12.1999 can be established through the communication dated 26.07.2000 of the Senior Manager of the Post Offices but the State Commission has discarded the said plea on the ground that the said communication emanating from the Senior Manager, Post Offices, is not a genuine document, merely because there was delay in seeking the amendment and in filing such document and no oral evidence was adduced to prove the same. This was a crucial document in order to show the conduct of the opposite party-bank in discharge of their functions and duties. Since the counsel for the respondent is disputing the genuineness of the communication dated 26.7.2000, we are of the view that it is a fit case wherein the State Commission -6- ought to have allowed the prayer of the opposite party-appellant/bank seeking amendment of the written version and ought to have granted them liberty to produce the said communication 26.7.2000 issued by the Senior Manager, Post Offices. In any case, there was nothing to doubt the genuineness of the said document and if at all the State Commission entertained any doubt, it could have summoned the author of said communication from the Department of Post in order to decide the controversy in an effective manner. 4. For the forgoing reasons, we are inclined to allow the present appeal in part and set aside the impugned order and remit the complaint back to the State Commission for deciding the same afresh after taking the communication dated 26.07.2000 into consideration. Further evidence, if any, may be led by the opposite party subject to the right of the complainant to lead any evidence in rebuttal. This will be subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by the appellant-Bank to the respondent. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 3.11.2010 for receiving further directions in the matter. The State Commission is requested to dispose of the -7- complaint as early as possible as the matter has already been delayed.