Petitioner was the opposite party no.1 before the District Forum. Opposite party no.2 – respondent no.2 herein – which is a travelling agency sent some tourists to the hotel of the complainant/respondent no.1 in the month of January 2012. Out of the total boarding/lodging charges of Rs.95,453/- respondent no.2 paid Rs.50,000/- in cash and sent a cheque of Rs.45,453/- drawn on Punjab National Bank to the complainant/respondent no.1. The cheuqe which was deposited with the petitioner bank for encashment was neither credited to the Account of the complainant nor any intimation of the same was given to him. The cheuqe was eventually returned by the petitioner to the complainant/respondent no.1 after a delay of four months. Respondent no.1 filed the complaint before the District Forum alleging that because of the failure of the bank to return the dishonored cheque within time he could not take action under the Negotiable Instruments Act. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner/opposite party no.1 and respondent no.2 to jointly and severally pay Rs.45,453/- to the complainant/respondent no.1 along with
-3- interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till making the full payment. Rs.5,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.1500/- as costs. Complaint against opposite party no.3 & 4 was dismissed. Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner relying upon “CANARA BANK VS. SUDHIR AHUJA, I (2007) CPJ 1 (NC)” , “STATE BANK OF PATIALA VS. RAJENDER LAL & ANR., IV (2003) CPJ 53 (NC) and Azhar Mohammed & Ors. vs. Punjab National Bank, I (2009) CPJ 44 (NC)” contends that the bank could not be held liable to reimburse the value of the cheque lost in transit and the consumer fora could only award compensation commensurate with the deficiency in service. We find substance in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. It is an established principle of law that the bank cannot be made liable to reimburse the value of the cheque lost in transit but it could only be directed to compensate the complainant to commensurate with the deficiency in service. This Commission in “CANARA BANK VS. SUDHIR AHUJA, I (2007) CPJ 1 (NC)” 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. -4- 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 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 Commission requiring the petitioner to pay the entire amount of the cheque in question cannot be legally sustained. In the facts and -5- circumstance of case, we quantify the amount of compensation payable to the respondent at Rs.5,000./-.” Earlier the same view was taken by this Commission in “STATE BANK OF PATIALA VS. RAJENDER LAL & ANR., IV (2003) CPJ 53 (NC)”. In that case, State Bank of Patiala had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 30.07.2009. This decision was followed by this Bench in “Andhra Bank vs. C. Ananta Reddy & Ors. revision petition 2261/2007 (decided on 11.07.2011).” Respectfully following the law laid down by the Supreme Court, we accept this revision petition and set aside the order of the State Commission directing the petitioner to pay the cheque amount of Rs.45,453/- to the respondent no.1/complainant. However, direction issued by the fora below regarding the payment of compensation and costs is upheld. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has deposited before the State Commission Rs.25,000/- as a condition precedent at the time of filing of appeal and Rs.48,348/- later on under the directions of this Commission. State Commission is directed to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner except the sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and -6- Rs.1500/- as costs which may be disbursed to the complainant/respondent no.1 along with accrued interest thereon. | 
