G. Balagangadharan Nair, President This appeal by the unsuccessful complainant before the Consumer Disputes Forum, Ernakulam arises under the following circumstances:

2. The Appellant is a firm doing business in machine tools and accessories. They have an over draft facility to the extent of Rs. 75,000/- with the respondent bank. On 30.11.1988 a cheque dated 23.11.1988 for Rs.15,726.51 ps from the Hindustan Newsprint Limited drawn on the Central Bank of India, Mavelloor was entrusted by the appellant to the respondent for encashmem. After deducting the discount charges the respondent credited the amount to the appellant’s overdraft account and sent the shcque by registered post for collection to the Mavelloor branch of the Central Bank. The cheque was not returned and after some correspondence the appellant obtained a duplicate cheque from the Hindustan Newsprint Ltd., and gave it to the respondent. The respondent discounted it on 25.7.1989, and debited an amount of Rs. 2160/- to the appellant’s account being the over due interest for the period from t 12.1988 to 25.7.1989. The complainant- appellant - alleged that the debiting of this amount is illegal and contrary to banking practice, for the cheque was lost owing to the respondent’s negligence. The appellant therefore claimed that they are entitled to the refund of Rs. 2160/- They also claimed Rs. 1500/- as compensation for the loss caused to them and Rs. 500/- on account of legal expenses.

3. The Opposite party respondent - resisted the claim contending that the cheque was sent for collection on 28.11.1988 and that on 30.11.1988 at the request of the appellant it was discounted and after deducting discounting charges the appellant’s account was credited with Rs. 15,726.51 ps. The cheque was sent for collection by registered post but it was lost in transit and appellant was duly informed about the loss of the cheque. After some correspondence the Hindustan Newsprint Ltd., issued another cheque which was also sent to the respondent That was discounted on 25.7.1989 and after debiting the discount charges the amount was credited in the complainant’s account On the sent day a sum of Rs. 17,886.51 ps. was debited to the complainant’s account fer liquidation of the old outstanding dues and this amount includes the interest of Rs. 2160/ charged from 1.12.1988 to 25.7.1989 at the rate of 20.5%. The cheque was discounted pursuant to a contract between the bank and the complainant and it was sent for collection entirely at his risk and responsibility. The discount was for immediate use of money by the complainant and it is a clean advance given by the bank and as such interest can be legitimately charged. The bank also objected that being a contract the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of at all only a civil suit will lie. The bank asked for dismissal of the complaint with its costs.

4. The District Forum over ruled these de• fences and passed an order dismissing the complaint.

5. The appellant’s principal complaint before us was that the respondent was not justified in debiting the appellant with interest on 25.7.1989 i.e. over due interest on the original cheque from the beginning upto 25.7.1989 and that the amount so charged should be refunded to him. Before considering it we shall in passing consider whether the respondent is liable for the loss of the original cheque. In A 1 which is copy of a letter addressed to the Head Office of the respondent bank as early as 28.7.1989 after referring to earlier correspondence the appellant’ has said “Ultimately we believe that postal Authorities are responsible for the loss incurred by us, as they have to either deliver the cover to the addressee or if undelivered return it to the sender. The appellant also requested the refund of the interest of Rs. 2160/- “pending recovery from the Postal Department who are solely responsible for the loss.” There can be therefore no doubt that the respondent was not at fault; no liabi