Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.10.1995 passed by District Consumer Forum, Bahraich in the Complaint Case No. 410 of 1994.

2. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant who is a retired Government Employee, received a cheque of Rs. 5,907/- dated 8.2.1994 which was sent to the banker, opposite party, for clearance on 18.3.1994. When amount of the cheque was not paid, the opposite party Bank’s Manager gave a letter to him addressed to the Bank Manager at Lucknow. The complainant went to Lucknow alongwith the letter but nothing could be traced out. Thereupon at the request of the complainant the Bank wrote a letter dated 7.9.1994 to the department concerned from where the complainant has retired for issue of another cheque. The department told him that unless the non-payment certificate is issued, no second cheque can be issued. After a long try by the complainant the Bank did not issue an objection latter. Therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint praying for the recovery of the amount of the cheque and expenses etc.

3. A notice was sent to the opposite party and in reply the Bank, Bank of Baroda, Bahraich, in their written reply alleged that the cheque was sent to State Bank of India, which has been lost in transit. The opposite party is not responsible for the loss of the cheque.

4. After considering the evidence on record and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum came to the conclusion that the opposite party, Bank, is liable to pay the amount of the cheque Rs. 5,907/- and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as damages alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 8.2.1994.

5. Aggrieved against this order, the appellant-Bank has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned District Forum. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the cheque was sent to State Bank of India, Lucknow for collection from Bahraich. The Service Branch of the appellant at Lucknow sent the cheque for clearance but the same was received with an objection. It is further argued that the said cheque alongwith objection was despatched to Bahraich branch but it was lost somewhere in transit. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, there is no liability of the Bank to pay the amount as cheque was lost in transit. The learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that it was the duty of the appellant Bank to have asked the Postal Authorities to pay the damages for non-delivery of cheque which is alleged to have been sent by the Lucknow branch of the Bank. According to learned Counsel for the appellant he is liable to pay the compensation only which the complainant has suffered and not the entire amount of the cheque. A query was made from the learned Counsel for the appellant as to whether any steps were taken by the Bank to enquire from the Post Office as to whether the cheque has been misplaced. The Bank has not filed any postal receipt to show that the cheque, as a matter of fact, was sent by registered post or not. It was the duty of the Bank to have taken precaution to send the cheque alongwith objection by registered post to Bahraich branch after it was received back by the Bank. Even the appellant did not take any steps to implead the Postal Authorities in the present case in order to show negligence on their part about the non-delivery of the alleged cheque sent by registered post. If the negligence lies on the part of the Postal Authorities, then the appellant should have taken steps before the learned District Forum for getting the Postal Authorities impleaded in the complaint. The fault was with the appellant-Bank at Lucknow because it was their duty to have taken steps by issuing reminders to the post office enquiring as to what has happened to the letters sent by them to the Bahraich branch. There was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in this aspec