1. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The RP has been filed with a delay of 225 days, for which an IA/4536/2026 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. Although the grounds for delay are not found convincing, in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned and the case is taken up on merits.

2. The challenge is to the order dated 29,05.2025 of the State Commission vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner herein, who was the original complainant before the District Commission, was dismissed. Earlier, the complaint was also dismissed by the District Commission vide its order dated 07.10.2019.

3. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that:

                          3.1 The Petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Jijamata Construction, engaged in road cohstructidh and development of roads. Respondent No.2, M/s Vinayak Road Builders & Developers, is a proprietorship concern owned by Mr. Samir Yashwant Patil and is also engaged in road construction. In 2015, Respondent No.2 assured the Petitioner Of awarding a civil contract. Subsequently, Respondent No.2 alleged that the Petitioner, while working with him, wrongfully obtained possession of the disputed cheque. The cheque was presented by the Petitioner for encashment, pursuant to which Respondent No.1 Bank initially credited Rs. 18 lakhs to the Petitioner's account but thereafter reversed the entry by debiting the said amount. It is alleged that Respondent No.1 Bank acted contrary to the rules and regulations of the Reserve Bank of India and the guidelines of the Banking Codes and Standards Board of India (BCSBI). Being aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum.

4. The Petitioner has challenged the orders Of the State Commission on following grounds:

                          (i) The State Commission as well as the District Commission failed to consider that the cheque amount was admittedly debited from the account of Respondent No. 2 and thereafter credited to the account of the Petitioner. Once the transaction was completed, Respondent No. 1 Bank had no authority to reverse the said entry by debiting the Petitioner's account. The impugned orders are therefore bad in law and liable to be set aside.

                          (ii) The State Commission and the District Commission further failed to appreciate that reversal of the cheque amount after completion of the transaction amounts to clear deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. The wrongful debit of Rs. 18,00,000/- from the account of the Petitioner without authority caused grave loss and hardship to the Petitioner, entitling him to compensation as claimed in the complaint.

                          (iii) The State Commission as well as the District Commission erred in not considering that Respondent No. 1 failed to provide the original dishonoured cheque along with the duly stamped and signed cheque return memo issued by Bank of India, Uran Branch. Despite repeated requests made by the Petitioner for taking legal action, the Respondent failed to furnish the said documents, which itself amounts to deficiency in service.

                          (iv) The State Commission and the District Commission failed to consider the judgment dated 19.07.2019 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 2028 of 2016 titled Manager of Bank of Baroda & Anr. Vs. Mr. Chitrodiya Babuji Divanji, wherein it was held that failure of the Bank to provide the dishonoured cheque and cheque return memo amounts to violation of the rights of the cheque holder and depositor. No reasons were assigned by the fora below as to why the said judgment was not applicable to the present case.

                          (v) The State Commission and the District Commission further failed to consider that till date no proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent No. 2, solely because'the Respondents failed to furnish the disputed cheque and return memo. The actions of the Respondents clearly reveal malafide intention and unfair exploitation of the consumer.

                          (vi) The State Commission and the District Commission also failed to appreciate that Respondent No. 1 initially sent SMS intimation regarding credit of the disputed amount to the Petitioner's account and thereafter reversed the said amount without ' prior notice or intimation. Acceptance of stop payment instructions after lawful clearance of the cheque is contrary to RBI guidelines and BCSBI norms and constitutes gross deficiency in service and abuse of power by Respondent No. 1.

                          (vii) The entire approach adopted by the State Commission and the District Commission is contrary to law, equity and good conscience, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, hardship and injury to the Petitioner. Hence, the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the Maharashtra State Commission and the order dated 07.10.2019 passed by the District Commission deserve to be modified and the complaint of the Petitioner deserves to be allowed.

                          (viii) The delay in filing the present Revision Petition is neither deliberate nor intentional. The Petitioner is a heart patient who underwent angioplasty and later suffered a brain stroke, requiring continuous treatment. He was also taking care of his aged mother and had lost his father who was suffering from cancer. Due to his medical and financial difficulties, he could not take timely steps after the matter was reserved for orders by the State Commission. The Petitioner therefore humbly prays that the delay may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice, while reserving liberty to amend, alter or add grounds and documents, if necessary.

5. As has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments1 that revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited, it should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the provision i.e. when State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provisions of law or against the pleadings or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, a case for interference may call for at the second appellate (revisional) 1 Ruby (Chahdra) Dutta vs. United India insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269, Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India and Ors. (2022) SCC Online SC 77, Lourdes Society Shehanjali Girls Hostel and Another Vs. H & R Johnson (India ) Limited and Ors, (2016) 8 SCC 286, T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Anr. Vs. N. Madhava Rao and Ors. (2019) 4 SCC 608, Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Limited and Ahr. (2022) 9 SCC 31 / jurisdiction. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of both the fora below with respect to there being no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No.1 Bank. We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, the District Forum and other relevant records, and heard the counsel for the petitioner herein. The State Commission has given a well-reasoned order, and we do not find any reason to interfere with its findings. We are in agreement with the reasoning given by the State Commission, on account of which there is no deficiency on the part of the respondent Bank. The bank has acted prudently and committed no mistake in the given circumstances and has taken timely action to reverse the credit on getting intimation that drawer has not issued the cheque in question, and there was an allegation of misuse of cheque by the petitioner herein by forging the signatures on the alleged cheque. Hence, the bank was justified in reversing the credit entry of this cheque. The extracts of the relevant paragraphs of the State Commission's order are reproduced below:

                          "5. It is admitted fact that the alleged cheque was presented to the respondent no.1 bank by the appellant/org.complainant for honouring of the cheque. We perused the documents placed on record i.e. cheque return slip, wherein it is clearly mentioned the reason for return Code no.12 'Drawer's signature differs' and in Code no.88, other reasons, wherein it is mentioned that 'the drawer has declared that he had not issued the cheque'. We have also gone through the letter dated 31/03/2018, wherein the respondent no.2 has raised a letter on the same day on which the cheque return slip was issued, wherein it is contended that the alleged cheque was not issued by the respondent no.2 to the appellant. It is also contended that the appellant is a servant of the respondent no.2 company and the same has been misused by forging the signature on the alleged cheque. Therefore, it was requested to the bank that if any amount is being credited to the account of the present appellant, the same maybe reversed back.

                          6. Admittedly, the banks are the custodian of the consumer accounts or funds. The banks have to keep the custody properly. In the present case, the respondent no.1 has issued dishonour slip, wherein it has been marked that the drawer's signature differs and the same message has been sent to the drawer of the cheque i.e. respondent no.2 by way of SMS. It is the duty of the banking authority to inform the drawer of the cheque, if any cheque has been dishonoured for the reasons mentioned in the slip. Therefore, the bank has not committed any error pertaining to the information to the drawer of the cheque, It is also pertinent to note that as sOon as the respondent no.2 came to the knowledge of the dishonour of the cheque, informed to the concerned bank to reverse the amount, if any, is credited to the account of the present appellant, The customer was vigilant to that effect. Admittedly, the amount was credited in the account of the appellant. However, as per the version of respondent no. 1 that the respondent no. 1 is a Public sector bank and when an instrument is presented for collection by an account holder, it has to be examined in accordance with the banking law and practice. In the instance case, when it was examined, it was found that the signature of the drawer mismatched and the drawer also confirmed that no such cheque was issued. Hence, it is the duty cast upon the respondent no.1 bank to reverse the amount, if any credited to the drawee's account. We do not find any deficiency on the part of the respondent bank while reversing the alleged amount to the account of the respondent no.2, as the alleged cheque was not honoured for the reason 'signature differ1. Hence, the Ld. District Consumer Commission has rightly passed an order by dismissing the consumer complaint of the present appellant. 14/e do not find any cogent reason to allow the present appeal. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are inclined to pass the following order:-

                          ORDER

                          1. Appeal stands dismissed.

                          2. Impugned Order passed by the Ld. District Consumer Commission in consumer complaint no.CC/18/620 dated 07/10/2019 is hereby confirmed.

                          3. No order as to costs.

                          4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. "

6. Accordingly, RP/408/2026 lacks merit. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission, Accordingly, the order of the State Commission is upheld and RP is dismissed.

7. Pending I As, if any, also stand disposed off.