Heard. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that Respondent/Complainant had current account with the Petitioner/Opposite Party. On 25.3.2003, respondent deposited a cheque for Rs.36,635.50 drawn on Development Credit Bank, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. When the cheque was not credited to their account on 23.4.2003, it made enquiries from the Petitioner Bank whose Senior Officer, Shri V.P.Gupta denied the receipt of the aforesaid cheque and issued a non-payment certificate dated 23.4.2003. Thereafter, respondent tried to contact the drawer of the cheque who was untraceable and who refused to issue another cheque. Thus, respondent suffered a loss of Rs.36,635.50. Accordingly, a consumer complaint was filed. 3. Petitioner in its written statement denied the averments made by the respondent and stated that it has not received the cheque as alleged by the respondent. 4. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi (short, istrict Forum allowed the complaint vide order dated 17.2.2007 and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.36,635.50 to the respondent. In addition, a sum of Rs.7,000/- was awarded towards interest, harassment and litigation charges. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Petitioner filed an appeal before State Commission, Delhi (short, tate Commission which dismissed the appeal. 6. Hence, the revision petition. 7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that it was open to the respondent to ask the person who had issued the cheque to issue a fresh cheque or he should have filed a suit to recover the amount. As such, there is no deficiency on the part of the petitioner. 8. District Forum in its order has held ; he complainant has placed on record a copy of the letter dated 23.4.2003 written by Shri V.P.Gupta, an officer of the Bank stating that the Development Credit Bank, G.K.-II has advised them that cheque No.118160 for Rs.36,635.50 which the complainant had deposited in the drop box of the respondent for clearing instrument has not been paid by them till 17.4.2003. The respondent also stated that as there is a notice on the drop box maintained by the respondent, wherein it is clearly stated that the liability of the answering respondent cannot be called in question simply on account of fact that the cheque has been dropped in the drop box, therefore, the complainant cannot have any grievance against the respondent. This plea of the respondent cannot be accepted because the system of drop box for collection of cheque is introduced by the respondent itself and it is a commonly accepted system of the respondent and other banks. As the respondent had not given manual receipt for the cheque, the complainant had no option but to deposit the cheque through its drop box system. We do not agree with the contention of the respondent that it cannot be held responsible for non-receipt of the cheque as it was delivered through drop box. Once, the accepted system of drop box has been introduced, if there is any lapse over there, as in this case, it is the respondent who is to be held guilty and therefore, it has to compensate the complainant. We, therefore, hold the respondent deficient of providing the services and hold him liable to pay a sum of RS.36,635.50 to the respondent. In addition, the respondent is also liable to pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant towards interest, harassment and litigation charges. We order accordingly. 9. State Commission while upholding the order of the District Forum, in its impugned order has observed ; . We have perused the impugned order closely. The District Forum has dealt with each and every aspect of factual matrix. Respondent placed on record a copy of letter dated 23-04-2003 written by an officer of the Bank stating that the Development Credit Bank, GK II has advised them that cheque No. 118160 for Rs.36,635.50 which the respondent had deposited in the drop box of appellant for clearing instrument has not been paid by them till 17-04-2003. 5. The aforesaid finding of fact does not suffer from any infirmity. 6. Whenever such a mechanism or device or arrangement is made by the service providers for the convenience of the consumers or for their own convenience, any of fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance in the system or mechanism resulting in the loss to the consumer amounts to deficiency in service. In the instant case the onus to prove that the cheque was never received by the appellant is heavily upon the Bank. 7. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was upon the respondent to ask the person who had issued the cheque to issue a new cheque or he should have filed a suit to recover the amount does not find favour with as the said person may refuse to issue a fresh cheque as he has already issued a cheque for the said amount and due to the deficiency on the part of the Bank resulting in non-encashing of the cheque consumer cannot be put at jeopardy. Consumer has an independent and additional remedy under section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act which may not be in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. 8. However, at the most the Bank can obtain indemnity bond from the respondent who has an account with it that in case the said amount is recovered he shall pay back the principal amount. 10. It is well settled that under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ct, the scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Under Section 21 of the Act, this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 11. Moreover, in the present case, a paltry sum of Rs.36,000/- only, is involved and for such a small amount, the petitioner has dragged the respondent to this Commission. 12. The Honle Supreme Court in urgaon Gramin Bank Vs. Khazani and another, IV (2012) CPJ 5 (SC), has observed; . Number of litigations in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes Central and State Governments and their instrumentalities Banks, nationalized or private, come to courts may be due to ego clash or to save the Officersskin. Judicial system is over-burdened, naturally causes delay in adjudication of disputes. Mediation centers opened in various parts of our country have, to some extent, eased the burden of the courts but we are still in the tunnel and the light is far away. On more than one occasion, this court has reminded the Central Government, State Governments and other instrumentalities as well as to the various banking institutions to take earnest efforts to resolve the disputes at their end. At times, some give and take attitude should be adopted or both will sink. Unless, serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects large number of persons or the stakes are very high, Courts jurisdiction cannot be invoked for resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed by the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts even at the level of Supreme Court of India and this case falls in that category. The Apex Court further held; 0. The Chief Manager stated in the affidavit that no bill was raised by the counsel for the bank for conducting the matter before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. We have not been told how much money has been spent by the bank officers for there to and fro journeys to the lawyersoffice, to the District Forum, State Forum, National Commission and to the Supreme Court. For a paltry amount of Rs.15000/-,even according to the affidavit, bank has already spent a total amount of Rs.12,950/- leaving aside the time spent and other miscellaneous expenses spent by the officers of the bank for to and fro expenses etc. Further, it may be noted that the District Forum had awarded Rs.3,000/- towards cost of litigation and compensation for the harassment caused to Smt. Khazani. Adding this amount, the cost goes up to Rs.15,950/-. Remember, the buffalo had died 10 years back, but the litigation is not over, fight is still on for Rs.15,000/-. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the bank, Shri Amit Grover, submitted that though the amount involved is not very high but the claim was fake and on inspection by the insurance company, no tag was found on the dead body of the buffalo and hence the insurer was not bound to make good the loss, consequently the bank had to proceed against Smt. Khazani. 12. We are of the view that issues raised before us are purely questions of facts examined by the three forums including the National Disputes Redressal Commission and we fail to see what is the important question of law to be decided by the Supreme Court. In our view, these types of litigation should be discouraged and message should also go, otherwise for all trivial and silly matters people will rush to this court. 13. Gramin Bank like the appellant should stand for the benefit of the gramins who sometimes avail of loan for buying buffaloes, to purchase agricultural implements, manure, seeds and so on. Repayment, to a large extent, depends upon the income which they get out of that. Crop failure, due to drought or natural calamities, disease to cattle or their death may cause difficulties to gramins to repay the amount. Rather than coming to their rescue, banks often drive them to litigation leading them extreme penury. Assuming that the bank is right, but once an authority like District Forum takes a view, the bank should graciously accept it rather than going in for further litigation and even to the level of Supreme Court. Driving poor gramins to various litigative forums should be strongly deprecated because they have also to spend large amounts for conducting litigation. We condemn this type of practice, unless the stake is very high or the matter affects large number of persons or affects a general policy of the Bank which has far reaching consequences. 14. We, in this case, find no error in the decisions taken by all fact finding authorities including the National Disputes Redressal Commission. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the bank to the first respondent within a period of one month. Resultantly, the Bank now has to spend altogether Rs.25,950/- for a claim of Rs.15,000/-, apart from to and fro travelling expenses of the Bank officials. Let God save the Gramins. 13. Above quoted observations of the Apex Court, with all force are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. Under these circumstances, since paltry amount of Rs.36,000/- only is involved and the petitioner being a Public Sector Bank, it ought not to have dragged the respondent upto this Commission. 15. Accordingly, present revision is not maintainable and same is hereby dismissed. 16. No order as to cost.