ORDER

1.      The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) against the Order dated 14.03.2017 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana (“the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No. 1of 2015, wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainant (Appellant herein) was Dismissed.

2.      For Convenience, the parties in the present matter are referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before the State Commission. “Mr. Susheel Thakur is identified as the Complainant. While "State Bank of India’ & Anr are referred as the Opposite Parties (for short OPs).

3.      The brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that a cheque, No. 090232 dated 13.09.2005 for Rs. 2,70,000/- was issued by him went missing. Thus, he issued another cheque No. 090233 dated 13.10.2005, for the same amount, with a request to OPs stop payment for the first missing cheque. However, the second cheque was also not received by OPs Bank. Thus, yet another cheque No. 090234 dated 19.10.2005 for Rs. 2,70,000/- was dispatched against both the missing cheques. Astonishingly, the third was encashed by an ‘unknown person’, indicating negligence of OP in verifying the recipient's identity, despite being informed of the missing cheques.

4.      Following these incidents, a formal complaint was lodged with the Police on 07.12.2005. Thereafter, he received a threatening letter with photograph of a dead body, warning him that, if the case is pursued with the police, he would be killed. The Complainant suspected the involvement of staff of HAL campus branch of OP Bank, as an authorization letter sent through FAX, permitting his mother to execute bank transactions on his behalf in his absence and some bank officials might have exploited the same. These acts of the OPs amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Therefore, being aggrieved, he approached the learned State Commission and sought direction to OPs to pay Rs.2,70,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 25.10.2005; to pay Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation; to pay costs of Rs.50,000/- for travelling expenses; and to pay Rs.4,37,400/- towards interest on Rs.2,70,000/- for a period of 9 years, altogether an amount of Rs.22,57,400/-.  

5.      OP No.1 filed a reply before the learned State Commission, contending that the complaint lacks merit and should be dismissed due to fraudulent intent. The complaint was filed well beyond the stipulated limitation period under Section 24A of the Act, as the subject cheque (No. 090234, dated 19.10.2005) was honored by the bank over a decade ago, on 08.11.2005, rendering, no cause of action to file the complaint. The OP No.1 contended that the Complainant holds a Savings Bank account (A/c No. 10442403060) with their HAL Campus branch, with cheque book facilities for depositing and withdrawing funds. Referring to the police complaint filed by the Complainant's sister, it was mentioned that the Complainant had dispatched three sealed covers through the postal department, each containing a cheque for Rs. 2,70,000/- (cheque Nos. 090232, 090233, and 090234). These were addressed to OP No.1 but allegedly did not reach the Complainant. The OP No.1 highlighted that upon receiving the third cheque (No. 090234, dated 19.10.2005) for payment in normal course, they honored it after verifying the signature. They contended that any grievance against the individual encashing the amount should be directed at that person, not the bank. They further contended that the Complainant filed a complaint with Banking Ombudsman, which was dismissed, and subsequent initiation of the present complaint, nearly a decade later is an action driven by malafide intentions. OP No.1 maintained that they aren't liable for any payments as claimed in the complaint, asserting there was no deficiency of service. OP No.2, in agreement with OP No.1's stance, adopted the written version filed by OP No.1 and aligned their r