Petitioner was having a saving bank account with the Syndicate  Bank  (Respondent No.1 herein).  He  applied  for 228 Right Equity Shares of Rs.45/- each of Saregama India Ltd. (respondent No.2 herein). He gave cheque of Rs.10,260/- to respondent No.2. The cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonoured by respondent No.1 on the ground that signatures of the petitioner did not tally with the specimen signatures kept in the Bank. Due to non-payment, shares could not be issued.

          Being aggrieved, petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the respondents to pay Rs.25,000/-. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to pay difference of price between the rates on the date of allotment less the originally offered price of 228 shares. The compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.2,000/- was also allowed.

Being aggrieved, respondent filed the appeal before the State Commission. State Commission set aside the direction issued by the District Forum regarding the payment of  difference  of  price  between  the  rates  on  the  date of allotment less the originally offered price of 228 shares. Remaining order was upheld.

Petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present revision petition.

Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the subsequent letter written by the Bank to Saregama India Ltd., which reads as under: -

“With reference to the above, we write to inform you that Mr. Anand Prakash is maintaining a Saving Bank Account with us with sufficient balance in the Account. Inadvertently, the captioned cheque has been returned by us. We, therefore, request you to please represent the said cheque once again and consider his application for allotment of Equity Shares.”

          contends that in view of the admission made by the Bank that it had returned the cheque inadvertently, the State Commission has erred in reversing the order of the District Forum.

          We do not find any substance in this submission. The stand taken by the Bank in its written statement is that the cheque has been dishonoured as there was a difference between the signatures on the cheque and the specimen signatures kept in the Bank but on the representation made by the petitioner a letter was written to Saregama India Ltd. respondent No.2 to enable the petitioner to get the shares. The Bank in its letter has not accepted that the signatures on the cheque did not differ with the specimen signatures kept in the Bank. It seems that the Bank had written the letter on the representation made by the petitioner to enable him to get the shares. The letter written by the Bank does not show that it was, in any way, deficient in rendering service to the petitioner. It has not been proved on record that the signatures on the cheque tallied with the specimen signatures.

                   Dismissed.