Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                  The case  of the complainant, in nutshell  is that  the complainant   has  got a account with OP-Bank.  He has submitted  a cheque of Rs.60,000/- on  20.05.2010 in the OP-Bank for its collection from the drawee bank at Mumbai. The cheque amount was not encashed  after elapse of several months and no information was supplied to the complainant for which the complainant showing deficiency in service on the part of the OP, filed the complaint case.

4.      The OP   neither appeared nor filed any written version and as such the matter was heard ex-parte.

5.        After hearing  both the parties, learned
District Forum   has passed the following order:-

                      Xxxx         xxxxx           xxxxxxx

                      “ The complaint is allowed on exparte. The OP is directed  to credit a sum of Rs.60,000/- in the S.B. Account bearing No.10203876835 of the complainant alongwith interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of deposit 20.05.2010 till its credit. Besides, the OP is directed to pay cost of the litigation of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand) within one month from the date of receipt of this order. “

6.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by directing the OP to pay  the cheque amount because it is settled in law   that in case of missing of  cheque as well as negligent in crediting the cheque amount in his S/B account, cheque amount can not be allowed  to be payable but for the defects compensation can be allowed.  He also submitted that the interest is very higher  and same should not been awarded.    Therefore,  he submitted that the impugned order should be set-aside  by allowing the appeal.

7.               Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order .

8.               Although the OP have been set exparte but the fault lies with the appellant for not appearing before the learned District Forum to file written version. However, it is clear from the material on record produced by the complainant that he has  filed the cheque for encashment  of Rs.60,000/- and the fact also remained unsolved till the  cheque was not encashed. When the cheque amount was not credited to the account of the complainant, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

9.           It is true that the cheque amount  can not be allowed to be paid to the depositor whereas for non-receipt of the cheque amount  there is negligence on the part of the OP which   can not be denied.  Be that as it may, we hereby find deficiency in service on the part of  OP because of non-encashment of Rs.60,000/-    to the account of the complainant for which the cheque was issued. For such deficiency in service, we hereby modified the impugned order  by directing the OP to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-  to the complainant  and remove deficiency in service. The interest @ 18 % per annum be reduced to 9 % payable on such  amount  in view of the fact  that the interest is in higher side. If the  payment alongwith interest not paid within 45 days from today then the compensation  @ 18 % would be  payable from the date of impugned order till date of payment.

                 Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.           

                 Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

                   DFR be sent back forthwith.