Date of Filing : 02.09.2022 Date of Disposal :29.09.2022 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED:29.09.2022 PRESENT Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER APPEAL NO.1803/2022 Mr. Ramesh R S/o Mr Ramakrishna Aged about 42 years Residing at No.9/1 Burndavana 5^th Cross Nethravathi Road Maruthinagar Chandra Layout Nagarabhavi Bengaluru-560 072 (By Mr. Sharath Kumar Shetty, Advocate) Appellant -Versus-

1. The Authorised Officer HDFC Bank Ltd., Municipal No.8/24 Richmond Road Corporation Division No.61 Bengaluru -560 025 Branch Code 523

2. The Branch Manager HDFC Bank No.52, 1st Main Near Nagarabhavi BDA Complex Annaporneshwarinagar Nagarbhavi, Bengaluru-560072

3. The Branch Manager HDFC Bank No.9, ‘Eterna’ Koramangala Industrial Layout Koramangala Bengaluru-560 095 Respondents -:ORDER:-

Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by OPs aggrieved by the Order dated 05.07.2022 passed in Consumer Complaint No.293/2021 on the file of I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (for short, the District Forum).

2. Commission examined the grounds of Appeal, impugned order and heard learned counsel found satisfied to dispense with issuance of appeal notice to respondent as not necessary.

3. Learned counsel for Appellant submits that an endorsement issued on 29.12.2020 and because of such delay in issuing endorsement and in not honouring the cheque amount by OP had lost a legal remedy, yet the Commission below wrongly come to the conclusion, that complainant to avail civil remedy by filing a suit for recovery. According to complainant cheque was presented on 20.12.2020, while OP issued an endorsement only on 29.12.2020, which is clearly establish the alleged deficiency of service on the part of OP was not at all considered by the Commission below.

4. We examined the impugned order, found Commission below observed, complainant can get a fresh cheque from Mr. Srinivas N.V or else he can get the stale cheque re-validated and even if that is not possible can file a Civil suit to recover cheque amount of Rs.28 lakhs.

5. The brief facts alleged by the complainant in the complaint that one Mr Srinivas N.V. issued a cheque dated 25.09.2020, drawn on HDFC Bank, Nagarabhavi Branch, Bengaluru in favour of Complainant, he deposited the said cheque for encashment at the Richmond Road Branch on 22.12.2020. According to Complainant, issuing bank, where the cheque was presented are one and the same viz., HDFC Bank and they are impleaded as OPs 1 and 2, he alleged that cheque presented by him was returned without encashment with an endorsement that the ‘cheque is stale’. He alleged that it was due to negligence of the OP, resulted in the loss of amount mentioned in the Cheque. However, facts remain that the complainant has failed to show as on the date of presentation of cheque on 22.12.2020 Mr. Srinivas N.V. had sufficient funds in his account to en-cash the covered amount of the cheque and when this vital aspect was not at all shown either to the Commission below or this Commission, delay in issuing endorsement alone cannot be said rendering deficiency in service on the part of OP. We have gone through the records and complainant found failed to convince to show in between the date of presentation of the cheque and issuance of the endorsement Mr.Srinivas N.V. had sufficient funds to honour the cheque in question and in such circumstances, Commission below has to be held rightly dismissed the complaint with an observation that he can get the stale cheque revalidated and can also avail jurisdiction of civil court for recovery of Rs.28 lakhs besides can invoke the provision of Section 138 of NI Act. Merely because, the cheque presented on 22.12.2020 was returned with an endorsement that the cheque is stale on 25.12.2020 alone could not be said OPs 1 and 2 were either negligent or