State Commission dismissed the complaint by observing thus :

“The case of the OP is that a cheque bearing No.055893 dated 13.2.2004 was issued by the complainant in respect of the part payment of the tour programme, but it was dishonoured by the bank. The complainant himself has filed paper No.125 issuing direction to the concerning bank for stopping the payment. Ultimately it was dishonoured. The position remains that Rupees eight lakhs has not been paid so far by the complainant to the OP, which was a part of the package tour cost. This goes to show that the complainant himself has a defaulter in making the payments with a malafied contention. The OP alleged that a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is pending in the Criminal Court. In para No.7 of the Rejoinder Affidavit it is admitted by the complainant that the OP filed a case u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the bail was granted. In para No.8 of the said affidavit, it is admitted by the complainant that the application for bail was moved before Hon’ble High Court, which was granted. It was also admitted by the complainant in the said paragraph that the account of the complainant was also freezed but conditionally it was defreezed by the Hon’ble High Court. It is crystal clear that there are stoppage of the payment by the complainant to the OP, filing of the case u/s 138 of the of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the complainant, lodging of FIR u/s 420 of the IPC by the OP against the complainant and seeking of the bail by the complainant by Hon’ble High Court.

We have also stated here in above that in support of the allegation with regard to insufficient booking of the rooms, not providing the Conference Hall and supply of bad food at the time of breakfast, lunch and dinner, there was no evidence at all and we are constrained to hold that the complainant has filed this complaint with a malafide intention against the OP as having counter blast against the criminal proceedings initiated by the OP against the Complainant.”

        This case had come up for hearing on 15.5.2013.  Prima facie, we were of the view that the appeal was frivolous and was likely to be dismissed as it did not have any merit.  Still, in order to given an opportunity to the appellant, we issued notice to the respondent subject to the appellant depositing Rs.1 lakh towards costs to be paid to the respondent in case the appeal fails.

        Amount has not been deposited.  Counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is not in a position to deposit the amount.  Dismissed for non-prosecution.