Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                   The case     of the complainant, in nutshell  is that  complainant   had deposited  a cheque bearing No.513201  for an amount of Rs.1,87,897/- drawn on OP NO.2-Bank   who is appellant in this case  has deposited  in his current account. It is alleged inter-alia that inspite of repeated correspondences   there is delay  with the OP No.1 to deposit the cheque amount  for which he sent legal notice  to the OP No.1. He stated  that the cheque was sent to OP No.2    for clearance but  no intimation  received from OP No.2. Thereafter it was intimated by OP No.1 that  the cheque has been returned  having dishonored   and same has been lost in transit. Thereafter the complainant   requested   OP No.1 for  payment of Rs.1,87,897/- towards  cheque amount   and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost. So, showing deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complaint was filed.

4.            The  OP  No.1    filed written version stating that  after receiving cheque,   he  has sent  same to OP No.2  for collection and subsequently after correspondences he came to know from OP No.2  that the cheque have been  dishonored. But the OP No.1 had not received back the cheque from the OP No.2. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1.   However, OP No.2 neither filed the written version nor contested the case although service of notice was made   sufficient against him.

5.                       After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum   passed the following order:-

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                        In the  result case is allowed in part on contest. Both the Ops are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- each to the complainant within two months  from the date of passing of this order. However, we direct both the parties to bear their own costs.”

6.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version filed by the Ops with proper perspectives. According to him  he has no  relationship with the complainant  and he has received   the cheque but  returned same  as  the amount was insufficient which  was lost in transit. Therefore, he has no liability. However, learned District Forum has not understood  the facts  and law  involved in this case for which it should be set-aside by allowing the appeal.   

7.                      Considered the submission  of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.       

8.                    It is admitted fact that the complainant has deposited  the cheque in question before the OP No.1 who sent it to Op No.2 for  encashment and OP No.2 returned   the cheque with reply that there is insufficient   fund. But the cheque did not reach   with  OP No.1. No doubt the  fact as narrated  above shows  that the bounced cheque was lost  in transit. It is to be decided whether the Ops are liable  jointly or severally or not.

9.                   When the complainant has deposited the cheque but the cheque is bounced  it is for the OP No.1 to return the cheque in question, so that the complainant can  take legal action against the person    who issued the cheque  under the N.I.Act. The OP No.2  who sent  the cheque after giving remark that cheque has been bounced, the   cheque  should have reached the destination. But OP No.2  did not take care  whether the cheque has been received by the complainant  from OP No.1. The complainant is only a consumer. He is waiting for  the encashment of cheque  but did not receive same. So, in view of our opinion, Ops have   got joint responsibility. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops which   can not be lost sight of.

                    Therefore, the impugned order is confirmed.

                   In the result,  appeal stands dismissed. No cost.  

                   Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.  

                     DFR be sent back forthwith.