ORDER

K.B. Sangannanavar, Pri. Dist & Session Judge (R), Judicial Member—This is an appeal filed U/s.15 of CPA 1986 by OP.2/Appellant aggrieved by the order dtd.05.12.2019 passed in CC/576/2019 on the file of 1st Addl., Bengaluru Urban District Commission. (Parties to the appeal henceforth will be referred to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission).

2. The Commission examined the grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard learned Counsels for the parties to the appeal.

3. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant before the District Forum would be as he had presented a cheque bearing no.009322 drawn on Union Bank of India dtd.24.04.2017 for an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- issued by Golalappa Gouda Madivalappa on the counter of the OP.1 bank for encashment where Complainant had an account. Accordingly OP.1 had sent the said cheque to OP.2 for realisation, when enquired revealed the cheque was not realised for the reason they did not received the cheque bearing no.009322/24.04.2017 and the cheque must have lost in transit, as such have requested the OP no.1 to send duplicate cheque for collection.

4. It is also stated OP.1 has filed complaint against OP.2 with Ms.Samyuktha.C.R C/o Reserve Bank of India Department of Co-operative Bank Supervision (DCBS) on 10.03.2008, who advised the OP.2 to handle the issue in close co-ordination to bring in an amicable settlement at an earliest point of time. It is also stated the drawer Golalappa Gouda Madivalappa was not ready to issue another cheque and it was brought to the notice of RBI. One Mr.R.Shankaranarayana, Manager, RBI has written a letter to OP.1 stating that, the cheque sent by courier is as good as cheque presented on the counter and hence it does not fall under the definition of clearing house process. Any dispute between sub-member banks and/or between member and sub-member bank does not fall under the purview of the dispute resolution mechanism prescribed and it shall be resolved bilaterally among them. In such circumstances, complainant had filed a consumer complaint against OPs.1 & 2 and sought direction against OPs.1 & 2 to pay Rs.5,50,000/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of presentation of cheque till realisation and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost. As the complaint was admitted and ordered notice, OP.1 had contested, while OP.2 remained absent was placed exparte. OP.1 in its version admits presentation of cheque by the Complainant, which was drawn on Union Bank, Sindagi Branch dtd.24.04.2017 and was sent to OP.2 on 27.04.2017 for clearance. However they did not receive the amount covered under the said cheque, wrote reminders, but OP.2 informed that the said cheque either was misplaced or else untraceable. It was also informed that, their earlier Officer who received the cheque denied, having received the same and requested to obtain duplicate cheque to send it for collection. In view of rival contentions of Complainant and OP.1, District Forum held an enquiry, raised relevant points for considerations and proceed to record affirmative findings on both the points and held complainant is proved the deficiency in service on the part of OPs and held OP.2 is liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date on which it received the cheque for collection till the payment of entire amount to the Complainant and do pay Rs.5,000/- towards damages and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation and other charges and dismissed the complaint as against OP No.1. It is this order is being assailed in this appeal contending District Forum has failed to appreciate that the Complainant, if at all was in the custody of a cheque for payment with regard to any bonafide transaction could have secured another cheque from the account holder of the OP.2 for representation. The customer of the OP.2 who had issued the cheque in favour of the Complainant never had amount to the