ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. In this revision filed against the order dated 6.9.2006 of Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur, the petitioner seeks enhancement of compensation beyond Rs. 5,000 as granted by the State Commission against respondent No. 2.
2. In nutshell, facts giving rise to this revision are these. Petitioner/complainant was issued four cheques all dated 10.10.2003 for a total amount of Rs. 50,000 by respondent No. 1/ opposite party No. 1. These cheques were drawn on Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Durg. Cheques were deposited for collection in his account by the petitioner with respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2 bank on 31.3.2004. On 26.4.2004, cheques were returned with the note ‘those were not produced within due date’. Alleging deficiency in service the petitioner filed complaint claiming amount of Rs. 61,000 including amount of the cheques in question of Rs. 50,000. Complaint was contested by filing separate written versions by both the respondents. Respondent No. 1 alleged that he had taken loan from one Pappu Saluja and in lieu thereof Pappu Saluja obtained signatures from him. Though the loan was returned to Pappu Saluja but he had not returned the cheques in question. In the written version, respondent No. 2 bank admitted of having received the cheques in question on 31.3.2004. However, it was alleged that due to closing there was heavy work and the cheques, therefore, could be sent to Rajanandgaon Gramin Bank, Durg for collection on 7.4.2004. Bank returned the cheque on 13.4.2004 as those were not presented within six months of their issue. It was denied that there was any deficiency in service on its part as alleged. The District Forum dismissed the complaint by the order dated 7.4.2006. Appeal against District Forum’s order filed by the petitioner was allowed holding respondent No. 2 bank deficient in service. The bank was directed to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation. Appeal against respondent No. 1 was dismissed with compensation of Rs. 3,000 and cost to respondent No. 1.
3. We have heard Mr. Ashutosh Sharma for petitioner.
4. It is admitted case of the parties that cheques in question all dated 10.10.2003 were deposited by the petitioner with respondent No. 2 on 31.3.2004 for collection and those were sent by respondent No. 2 to their branch at Durg on 7.4.2004 and the Durg branch returned the cheques on 13.4.2004 on ground of six months validity period having expired. State Commission had, thus, found respondent No. 2 bank deficient in service for delay in despatching the cheques to their branch at Durg on 7.4.2004 and awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000. To be only noted that amount of Rs. 61,000 as claimed by the petitioner also included amount of Rs. 50,000 of the cheques in question. This Commission has taken the view in State Bank of Patiala v. Rajender Lal and Anr. IV (2003) CPJ 53 (NC), and other cases rendered subsequently that a bank on ground of deficiency in service in such like matters can be burdened with compensation but it cannot be made to pay the entire amount of the cheque. In view of said facts, there is no scope for increase of compensation beyond Rs. 5,000. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.