Per Justice Mr.S.B. Mhase, Hon’ble President Ms.Sharda Pinjari, Advocate present for the appellant. Respondent No.2 has been served. Postal acknowledgement has been received. Advocate Mr.D.K. Gupta appearing for respondent No.1 is absent today. 2. Heard. 3. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 11/03/2011 passed by Addl. District Forum, Thane in consumer complaint No.83/2010. The original opponent No.1 has filed this appeal. Respondent No.1 in the present appeal is the original complainant and respondent No.2 is the original opponent No.2. 4. Complainant is having a current account with opponent No.1/appellant-Oriental Bank of Commerce. The complainant has issued a cheque on 11/09/2007 bearing No.302505 for `97,500/-. Said cheque was issued in favour of “Escrow Account-Power Grid Corporation Public Issue” in order to purchase shares. As per instructions said cheque was presented by Power Grid Corporation of India with the Union Bank of India/respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 presented it to the appellant/opponent No.1 through collecting system and said cheque was dishonoured by opponent No.1/appellant on the ground of ‘insufficient fund’. It was rejected on the same date i.e. 18/09/2007. Thereafter, complainant has claimed said shares from the Power Grid Corporation of India then the complainant came to know that the cheque was dishonoured and shares could not be given to her. That information was received by the complainant on 13/05/2009 and thereafter, complaint has been filed. Upholding the case of the Complainant, the Banks were directed to pay a compensation. 5. Now it is an admitted fact that cheque was wrongly dishonoured by the appellant/opponent No.1 though sufficient funds were available in the account of the complainant. The only ground raised in the present appeal and argued before us is of limitation. Learned Counsel submitted that the cheque was dishonoured on 18/09/2007 and therefore, from that date onwards within two years, complaint should have been filed and the complaint is, thus, time-barred. We do not find any substance in the contention raised by Learned Counsel because intimation and information of the dishonoured of cheque was not given by the appellant/opponent No.1 to the complainant. It was very much necessary in view of the fact that transaction was in respect of purchase of shares. Not only that the Power Grid Corporation of India has not informed in respect of dishonour of cheque, it is only when the complainant tried to find out whether shares have been purchased and wanted to get the shares from the Power Grid Corporation of India, it was found that cheque was dishonoured by the appellant that too when the funds were sufficiently available in the account of the complainant. What we find that after getting such information, the complaint as filed is within limitation. We do not find any substance in the appeal. Hence, we pass the following order:- -: ORDER :- 1. Appeal is hereby rejected. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Pronounced Dated 13th December 2012. | 
