STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND DEHRADUN Date of Admission: 10.03.2026 Date of Final Hearing: 10.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 11.03.2026 SC/5/RP/10/2025 Smt. Kanti Dobhal W/o Sh. Rajesh Dobhal R/o House No. 15/90 (New No. 278)

Ward No. 9, Chakrata Road, Vikasnagar District Dehradun (Through: Sh. L.D. Dobhal, Advocate)

…… Revisionist Versus State Bank of India Branch Pantnagar, Pantnagar District Udhamsingh Nagar, Uttarakhand (Through: None)

…… Opposite Party Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. B.S. Manral, Member

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This revision petition under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been directed against the impugned order dated 02.04.2025 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in miscellaneous application No. 03 of 2024, styled as Smt. Kanti Dobhal Vs. State Bank of India, whereby the consumer complaint filed by the revisionist / complainant, which was registered as a miscellaneous application, was dismissed, as being barred by limitation. Along with the consumer complaint, an application for condonation of delay in filing the consumer complaint supported by affidavit, was preferred by the revisionist / complainant. 2. Heard Sh. L.D. Dobhal, learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. Inspite of sufficient service, none appeared on behalf of the opposite party – bank, hence the revision petition was heard ex-parte against the opposite party.

3. In paragraph No. 6 of the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application by the revisionist / complainant before the District Commission, it was averred that the cause of action for filing the consumer complaint had arisen on 01.03.2023, when the complainant sent the banker's cheque in question to the bank for its revalidation and transfer the proceeds thereof to the Savings Bank Account of the complainant, but the bank failed to do so. It was further averred that the cause of action is continuing one. The same averment was made in paragraph No. 11 of the consumer complaint, wherein it was also stated that the complainant sent another letter dated

02.06.2024 to the bank, but to no avail.

4. A perusal of the consumer complaint shows that the banker's cheque in question was dated / issued on 11.03.2019 and as per the own version of the complainant contained in paragraph No. 7 of the consumer complaint, she sent the original banker's cheque to the bank on 01.03.2023 for revalidating the same and transferring the proceeds thereof to the Savings Bank Account No. 10235998857 of the complainant. It is common knowledge that the validity period of banker's cheque is three months’ from the date written on the instrument. Thus, by 01.03.2023, on which date, the banker's cheque was sent by the complainant to the bank for revalidation, the validity period of the instrument had already expired long back on 11.06.2019. In paragraph No. 4 of the affidavit filed by the complainant before the District Commission in support of delay condonation application, it was averred that owing to Covid-19 surge, the complainant could not physically go to the bank. It would not be out of place to mention here that Covid-19 Pandemic hit the country in the month of March, 2020. Thus, no sufficient reason / explanation was extended by the complainant for condonation of delay in filing the consumer complaint. 5. Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides for limitation period for filing consumer complaint. Sub-section (1) of Section 69 of the aforesaid Act envisages that the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years’ from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. M/s B.S. Agricultural Industries (I) reported in 2009 AIR SCW 2911, cited by learned counse