MUDIVARTHI RADHA KRISHNA Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the original complainant, against the order dated 5.10.2011 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench Tirupathi ('State Commission' for short) by which the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/opposite party challenging the order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nellore by which the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint of the petitioner and directed the respondent to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint. Vide its impugned order the State Commission the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint with cost computed at Rs.2,000/- payable by the petitioner. It is in these circumstances, that the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) We have heard Mr. C.P. Suresh, Advocate appearing for the petitioner and perused the record.

(3.) The only point for consideration before us in this case is as to whether the respondent Bank committed any deficiency in service in the collection of the cheque deposited by the petitioner with it. It is not under dispute that the petitioner presented the cheque in question dated 20.6.2007 for Rs.50,000/- with the respondent Bank on 17.12.2007. The cheque was valid upto 20.12.2007 and it was an outstation cheque drawn on Allahabad Bank, Hyderabad. The State Commission while reversing the finding of the District Forum held that if there was any delay, it was the complainant who was guilty of delay in presentation of cheque just three days prior to the expiry of the cheque. More so, when it was an outstation cheque, he ought to have presented the same well in advance to enable the OP Bank to collect the amount. The complainant cannot present the cheque at the 11th hour and then complain that there was delay which would constitute deficiency in service. In addition to this, the State Commission has also recorded the following reason in support of the impugned order: -