Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petition is filed against the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission. Admittedly, the respondent issued a cheque, which was drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, Sirsa Road, Hisar, which was sent to the petitioners after clearance. The cheque was cleared by Punjab & Sind Bank on 16.2.1999. Though, ordinarily it should have been honoured by the petitioners within reasonable time, even assuming that there was certain postal delay of few days, it was not cleared till 15.10.1999. Thus, there was approximate delay of 8 months in making the payment under the cheque, which was already cleared by Punjab & Sind Bank. The only material argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant could not be branded as onsumervis-vis petitioner. He contended that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and the complainant. He vehemently argued that the delay was totally unconcerned with the transaction between the complainant and his Bank in relation to the petitioners. He submitted that the communication was lost in transit and as such, the delay had occasioned. Still, however, it is difficult to countenance the submissions of the learned Counsel. The respondent cannot be the direct a party to the transaction inter-se banking business of the petitioners and the Punjab & Sind Bank. In the business transactions, the cheque cleared by the Punjab & Sind Bank was required to be honoured by the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners were the ultimate end service providers qua the complainant. They cannot absolve themselves from the liability only on the ground there was no written agreement between them and the complainant. Theirs was implied liability involved in the transaction. The consumer of the Punjab & Sind Bank is the ultimate beneficiary of the transaction between the said bank and the petitioners and as such, he could be branded as onsumer The findings of the facts need not to be disturbed in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction since no perversity is noticed. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs.