ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order passed by Learned District Forum Una camp at Bilaspur in consumer complaint No. 168/2012 title Vinay Kumar v. Branch Manager Punjab National Bank & Another decided on 16.06.2016. Brief facts of Case: 2. Complainant Vinay Kumar filed a consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is working at Gautam Medicos Shop No.2 at Zonal Hospital Bilaspur having his savings bank account No.1373000100530070. It is pleaded that complainant received payment in the shape of cheque bearing No.961300 dated 07.07.2012 for Rs. 5887/-(Five thousand eight hundred eighty seven). It is further pleaded that on 16.07.2012 complainant deposited cheque bearing No.961300 dated 07.07.2012 with opposite party No.1 and same was sent for collection from opposite party No.1. It is pleaded that amount was not collected in bank account of complainant and thereafter matter was brought to the notice of opposite party No.1 who assured complainant that opposite party No.1 would inquire and would inform complainant accordingly. It is pleaded that on 17.08.2012 opposite party No.1 has informed in writing that cheque was deposited for collection but cheque was not returned by opposite party No.2. It is pleaded that opposite party No.1 failed to collect and opposite party No.2 failed to make the payment of cheque amount in bank account of complainant and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief for payment of Rs. 5887/-(Five thousand eight hundred eighty seven) along with interest. Complainant also sought relief of payment of Rs. 30000/-(Thirty thousand) as compensation and in addition complainant also sought litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 5500/-(Five thousand five hundred) from opposite parties. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties No.1 pleaded therein that complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file present complaint against opposite party No.1. It is pleaded that cheque was presented on behalf of M/s. Gautam Medicos Shop No.2 opposite Zonal Hospital Bilaspur and it is pleaded that complaint does not fall within the definition of consumer dispute. It is pleaded that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is pleaded that cheque was presented on behalf of M/s. Gautam Medicos Shop No.2 opposite Zonal Hospital Bilaspur and it is pleaded that complaint does not fall within the definition of consumer dispute. It is pleaded that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is pleaded that Smt. Renu Bala resident of House No.57 Village & Post Office Bilaspur H.P. who issued the cheque bearing No.961300 dated 07.07.2012 and M/s. Gautam Medicos Shop No.2 opposite Zonal Hospital Bilaspur H.P. are necessary parties for just and proper adjudication of present complaint. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 pleaded therein that complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file present complaint. It is pleaded that complainant has no locus standi to file present complaint and it is pleaded that learned District Forum has no jurisdiction to try present complaint. It is admitted that cheque was received from Punjab National Bank for collection. It is pleaded that cheque amount was sent to opposite party No.1 through NEFT vide UTR No.IOBAN12206003134 dated 24.07.2012 for Rs. 5887/-(Five thousand eight hundred eighty seven) in Account No.6439003171165-A IFSC Code No.PUNB0643900 and same was debited from the account of Renu Bala. It is pleaded that due to server problem same was returned in the account of Renu Bala. It is pleaded that there is no relationship of opposite party No.2 and complainant. It is pleaded that Renu Bala who issued the cheque has given in writing to bank that whole amount of Rs. 5887/-(Five thousand eight hundred eighty seven) paid in cash to Gautam Medicos. It is further pleaded that Renu Bala has instructed bank that cheque which was sent by Punjab National Bank Ghumarwin to Indian overseas Bank Slapper should not be released and she stopped the payment. It is pleaded that complainant is only employee of Gautam Medicos and it is pleaded that opposite party No.2 did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 5. Complainant filed rejoinder reasserting the allegations mentioned in complaint. 6. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by learned District Forum appellant filed present appeal before State Commission. 7. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 8. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 5. Complainant filed rejoinder reasserting the allegations mentioned in complaint. 6. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by learned District Forum appellant filed present appeal before State Commission. 7. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 8. Following points arises for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 9. On dated 14.10.2014 learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant stated that he tender in evidence documents Annexures-C1 to C3 including proof affidavit and closed evidence on behalf of complainant. Even complainant has admitted in para-4 of the complaint that on 17.08.2012 opposite party No.1 has informed in writing that said cheque which was deposited by complainant for collection was not returned by opposite party No.2 and also informed that cheque proceeds also not deposited in bank account of complainant. It is proved on record that cheque was presented before opposite party No.1 on 16.07.2012 and information was given to complainant by opposite party No.1 in writing on 17.08.2012 relating to non return of cheque and relating to non deposit of amount in account of complainant. In the present case complainant has not sought relief of refund of original cheque in complaint. 10. On 20.01.2015 learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No.1 stated that he tender in evidence documents Annexures-R1/A to R1/I including proof affidavit on behalf of opposite party No.1 and closed the evidence. Shri Bhisham Singh Makta Branch Manager Indian Overseas Bank Slapper District Mandi H.P. filed affidavit Annexure-R2/E in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that after receipt of cheque from opposite party No.1 cheque amount was sent to opposite party No.1 through NEFT vide UTR No.IOBAN12206003134 dated 24.07.2012 for Rs. 5887/-(Five thousand eight hundred eighty seven) in Account No.6439003171165-A IFSC Code No.PUNB0643900. There is further recital in affidavit that due to problem of server the same was returned to account of Renu Bala. There is further recital in affidavit that Renu Bala has given in writing that whole amount of Rs. 5887/-(Five thousand eight hundred eighty seven) was paid in cash to Gautam Medicos. There is further recital in affidavit that due to problem of server the same was returned to account of Renu Bala. There is further recital in affidavit that Renu Bala has given in writing that whole amount of Rs. 5887/-(Five thousand eight hundred eighty seven) was paid in cash to Gautam Medicos. There is further recital in affidavit that Renu Bala instructed that cheque amount should not be released. 11. It is proved on record that complainant did not file any affidavit in support of controversial facts inter se parties. It is proved on record that complainant simply relied upon proof affidavit Annexure-C3 which was filed in support of complaint. It is held that affidavit filed in support of complaint is not affidavit in support of controversial facts inter se parties under section 13(4) (iii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is held that affidavit by way of evidence relating to controversial facts should be filed under section 13(4)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. 12. As per section 2(c) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 complaint means any allegation in writing made by complainant. It is held that affidavit filed in support of complaint cannot be treated as affidavit filed in support of controversial facts under section 13(4)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 but can be treated as affidavit in support of allegation in writing made by complainant under section 2(c) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is held that complaint falls within concept of pleading. It is held that pleading and evidence upon controversial facts are two different concepts under law. 13. It is proved on record that after perusal of complaint and version filed by opposite parties learned District Forum directed opposite parties to adduce evidence by way of affidavit relating to controversial facts. It is proved on record that complainant did not file any fresh affidavit relating to controversial facts but simply relied upon affidavit filed in support of complaint. It is proved on record that affidavit was filed by Shri Bhishan Singh Makta Branch Manager Annexure-R2/E under section 13(4)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 relating to controversial facts and there is recital in affidavit that payment was stopped as per written request of Smt. Renu Bala. Complainant did not implead Renu Bala as co-party in complaint. Even complainant did not file any counter affidavit in rebuttal. 14. Complainant did not implead Renu Bala as co-party in complaint. Even complainant did not file any counter affidavit in rebuttal. 14. In the present case it is proved on record that opposite party No.1 immediately sent cheque to opposite party No.2 for encashment. It is also proved on record that opposite party No.2 also immediately encash the cheque but same was not sent to opposite party No.1 due to fault in server. It is further proved on record that thereafter opposite party No.2 did not encash cheque because written application was filed before opposite party No.2 by Renu Bala who issued the cheque not to release amount. It is proved on record that opposite party No.2 has not released amount as per written request of Smt. Renu Bala. In view of above stated facts it is held that opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. Accordingly point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2: Final Order 15. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed. Order of learned District Forum is affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs in State Commission. File of learned District Forum along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.