APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Arjun Gupta, Advocate For Mr. S.L. Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent Mr. Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 19th MAY 2014 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 07.09.2012, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 603/2011, tate Bank of India versus Vinod Kumar,vide which while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 28.03.2011 in consumer complaint no. 560/2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari, allowing the said consumer complaint, was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent filed the consumer complaint in question, alleging that he deposited two cheques of `_3 lakh and `_3.5 lakh, both dated 12.11.2008, drawn by M/s G M Enterprises, with petitioner-1/OP-1, Jatusana, District Rewari branch of State Bank of India. The said cheques were drawn on Corporation Bank, but they were returned to the complainant on 17.12.2008, saying that the cheques had not been cleared by the said Bank. It has been alleged by the complainant that OP-1 received intimation to this effect from the Corporation Bank on 25.11.2008, but intentionally, did not communicate to the complainant upto 16.12.2008. It has been stated in the complaint that on the advice of OP-1, the complainant approached M/s. G.M. Enterprises and they informed him verbally that they were not having sufficient funds in their account on 24.11.2008 and that is why, the cheques were not cleared. They advised the complainant to deposit the cheques, after two months. The complainant says that he deposited the cheques again with OP-1 on 27.03.2009, but the amount was not credited to his account till 30.06.2009. In the first week of July 2009, a speed post letter was received by the complainant, containing the cheques crossed by red ink, and no endorsement from any bank. The envelope containing the cheques had come from State Bank of India, Rewari and had been sent from Post office Guriani. It is alleged that the cheques were not wilfully forwarded for onward collection and were returned through State Bank of India, Rewari, when the validity of the same had expired. The complainant alleged that due to deficiency in service by OP-1, he suffered harassment and financial loss and the said amount could not be credited to his account. The complainant prayed that the principal amount of the cheques alongwith interest @18% p.a. and ` 1.5 lakh as compensation should be given to him. 3. In their written reply filed before the District Forum, the petitioner/OP-1 stated that the said cheques were not honoured by the Corporation Bank due to insufficient funds and hence, they were returned on 17.12.2008. It has been stated in the grounds of revision petition by the petitioner/OP that the said cheques were drawn on Corporation Bank, Sector-14, Gurgaon, which is a member of the New Delhi Clearing House. Jatusana Rewari Branch of the petitioner Bank is not a member of New Delhi Clearing House and hence, these were outstation cheques and had to be sent to Delhi for clearance. The Bank had, therefore, returned the cheques within the usual time of about one month and hence, committed no deficiency in service. The petitioner/OP have firmly denied that they received the cheques again on 27.03.2009, saying that it was a concocted story. It has also been stated that if the complainant had deposited the cheques with some other branch, the petitioner-1/OP-1 was not responsible for the delay or for the expiry of validity period of the cheques. 4. The District Forum after taking into account the evidence of the parties, concluded that there was delay on the part of the OPs in handling the matter and hence, the complainant should be given interest @10%p.a. on the sum of ` 6.5 lakh for a total period of four months four days and also allowed ` 50,000/- as compensation and ` 1500/- as litigation expenses. In an appeal made by the petitioners/OP before the State Commission, the said order was upheld, saying that the cheques should have been returned within a period of one week or so. It is also stated that the cheques were received again by the Bank again on 27.03.2009, but returned after three months on 30.06.2009. Hence, the OPs were guilty of delay in handling the cheques. 5. During hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in the first instance, the cheques were returned because they were not cleared by the Corporation Bank due to insufficient funds. The cheques were never re-deposited with their Bank on 27.03.2009. The petitioner/OP had, therefore, not indulged in any deficiency in service. There was no proof that the cheques were deposited with the Bank on 27.03.2009. Regarding the copies of the pay-in-slips dated 27.03.2009, the learned counsel stated that there were no signatures of any one on behalf of the Bank on the slips. If the complainant had deposited the cheques in any other branch by putting in the drop-box etc., the petitioner/Op had no concern with the matter. The learned counsel for respondent/complainant, however, stated that the order passed by the Consumer Fora below was in accordance with law and should be upheld. 6. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The admitted facts of the case are that two cheques with amounts `_3_lakh and ` 3.5 lakh were issued by M/s G.M. Enterprises in favour of the complainant and these were deposited with petitioner/OP-1 on 15.11.2008. The version of the petitioner-1/OP-1 that these were outstation cheques and had to be sent to Delhi for clearance, has not been denied by the complainants anywhere. The cheques were returned to the complainants in about one month. It has been admitted by the complainant in the complaint itself that M/s G M Enterprises had told him that there were not sufficient funds in their account and hence, the cheques were dishonoured. The conclusion arrived at by the Fora below that the cheques should have been returned to the complainant within one week, is not correct, since these were outstation cheques and hence, a period of one month was taken for sending the cheques back as per the usual practice. The petitioner/OP is not guilty of deficiency in service for the return of the cheques on 17.12.2008, therefore. 7. Now, coming to the subsequent redeposit of cheques, the petitioner-1 which is Jatusana branch of State Bank of India have denied that the cheques were deposited with them again. On the copies of pay-in-slips produced by the complainant, there are no signatures on behalf of the Bank which may substantiate the version that the cheques were deposited with that Bank. A copy of the envelope by which the cheques were returned to the complainant has been placed on record, but this envelope shows that the same was sent by SBI Rewari and that also from the Post office Guriani, which is quite far from Rewari. The petitioners have stated in the revision petition that the question of Rewari Branch posting the letter from Guriani Post Office which is at a distance of about 25 kms, does not arise, because the main post office is available at Rewari itself. Further, there was no justification for the complainant to deposit the cheques with the Rewari branch, when he has been dealing with the Jatusana branch earlier. 8. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, there does not appear to be any cogent evidence to substantiate the version that the petitioner/OP have indulged in deficiency in service by any means. It is not clear how the District Forum and the State Commission reached the conclusion that there was delay on the part of the Bank in handling the cheques and hence, the Bank should pay interest for the period of delay to the complainant. 9. In the light of the discussion above, this revision petition is allowed and the orders passed by the State Commission and District Forum are set aside. The Consumer Complaint in question stands dismissed. The amounts if any, already paid by the OP to the complainant should be returned to the OPs. There shall be no order as to costs.