ORDER

1.       This is a Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner – Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. (in short, “J & K Bank”) / Opposite Party No. 2 against the Order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, the “State Commission”) dated 31.08.2010, directing the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 65,744/- with interest @ 7.5% to the Respondent No. 2 / Complainant No. 1. The State Commission also directed the Respondent No. 1 / Central Bank of India / Opposite Party No. 1 to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 /Complainant no. 2.

2.       Nobody appeared for the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

3.       The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent No. 3 had issued a cheque drawn on J&K Bank to the Respondent No. 2 for an amount of Rs. 65,744/-. The Respondent No. 2 presumably deposited this cheque with Central Bank of India, but no amount was credited in the account of the Respondent No. 2. In the meantime, the said cheque was got encashed by somebody from J&K Bank, but who took the money is not known. The Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have filed a Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short, the “District Forum”) for payment of the cheque amount to the Respondent No. 2 / Complainant No. 1 by both J&K Bank as well as the Central bank of India. The District Forum dismissed the Complaint on grounds of allegations of fraud and forgery giving liberty to both Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (Complainants Nos. 1 and 2) to seek remedy before the appropriate Civil / Criminal courts of law. On an appeal filed by the Complainants, the State Commission, however, went into the merits of the case and found that there was deficiency of service on the part of the Petitioner / J&K Bank. The relevant portion of the Order of the State Commission is as under:

“13. The appellants had tendered into evidence an affidavit of Sh. Suresh Kumar, Partner of M/s Jagan Nath and Co., Moti Bazar, Amritsar as Ex. CW-2/A and said Suresh Kumar pleaded in his affidavit that his firm had also account with respondent No. 1 i.e. Central Bank of India, Kt. Ahluwalia, Amritsar and maintaining its business transactions with the said bank regularly and used to deposit the cheque received from other concerns for crediting the same into its account and the bank used to issue counter slips which usually bears only the stamp of the bank without the signatures of its officials and also produced two photocopies of the counter-slip Ex. CW-2/1 and CW-2/2, which bears only the stamp of the bank and do not bear the signatures of any official of the bank. So from the perusal of the affidavit of Suresh Kumar and the counter slips of the vouchers, we are of the view that the version of Respondent No. 1 that appellant No. 1 had never deposited the cheque in dispute with respondent No. 1 is not correct and was deficient in rendering the services.

14. On the other hand, respondent No. 2 had admitted that payment of the cheque in dispute of Rs. 65,744/- was made to one Harbans Lal, Proprietor of M/s Harbans Lal Rakesh Kumar on behalf of appellant No. 1 as there was not a single unauthorized cutting on the cheque and the cutting on the cheque in dispute was duly signed by Ms. Jyoti, who issued the cheque on behalf of appellant No. 2 firm in favour of M/s Harbans Lal Rakesh Kumar. Signatures of Mr. Harbans Lal, who received the cash payment as partner of appellant No. 1 firm in whose favour the cheque was issued was also obtained on the back of cheque in dispute. But the version of respondent No. 2 is not correct and respondent No. 2 had illegally made the payment to alleged Harbans Lal when Smt. Rama Rani was the only proprietor of the firm M/s Harbans Lal Rakesh Kumar in whose favour the cheque in dispute was issued by appellant No. 2.

15. We have perused the cheque which was issued by appellant No. 2 in favour of appellant No. 1 as an account payee cheque. The status of the cheque from account payee t