Heard. 2. Respondent/Complainant had filed a Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(for short, ct against the Petitioner/Opposite Party alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioner on the ground that the cheque put in the drop box of the petitioner was not traceable and was encashed by someone else. 4. The consumer complaint was contested by the petitioner. 5. District Forum vide order dated 27.1.2014, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay; he cheque amount of Rs.30,800/-to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from 25.5.2009, when the cheque was dropped in the drop box, till the date of actual payment and also to pay Rs.2,200/- as litigation expenses 6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed vide its impugned order dated 07.03.2014. 7. Hence, the present petition. 8. There are concurrent finding of facts given by both the Fora below. 9. Since, a paltry sum of Rs.30,800/- plus interest @ 9% p.a. along with litigation cost of Rs.2,200/- is involved, we are not inclined to entertain this petition, in view of the decision of Honle Supreme Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs. Khazani and another, IV (2012) CPJ 5 SC, wherein the debt amount being a paltry sum of Rs.15,000/- was not settled by the bank. The Court observed; "Number of litigation in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes central and State Governments and their instrumentalities Bank, nationalized or private, come to courts may be due to ego clash or to save the officers’ skin. 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 Government 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 or 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". 10. The above quoted judgment of the Apex Court is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. Accordingly, present petition stand disposed of as such. However, the question of law raised in the present case, if any, is left open, to be decided in an appropriate case.