J. N. Sarma, Member — This appeal has been preferred by the appellants United Bank of India and the Branch Manager of Silchar Branch of the said Bank against the judgment dated 14.9.98 of District Forum, Cachar, Silchar in Consumer Case No.43 of 1995. 2. The facts of the case are stated succinctly as follows: Complainant Sri Manik Uz Zaman, a contractor by profession received a cheque No. 190917954544 dated 10.2.95 for Rs.8,000/- only drawn on State Bank of India (SBI), Silchar, from the Executive Engineer, PHE Division II, Silchar against the bill submitted by him as attorney for the contract works performed by him as authorised by one Moinuddin Borbhuyan on the strength of a Power of Attorney. He deposited the said cheque in his Bank Account No.22440/29 in Silchar Branch of the United Bank of India, the appellant herein, for collection. The appellant No.2 (OP No.2 in the complaint) informed the complainant, the respondent herein, vide letter dated 6.3.95 that the cheque had been returned by SBI, Silchar due to some irregularity in the endorsement and that subsequently the cheque had been misplaced at their end. The appellants took steps for collection of the amount after obtaining a duplicate cheque. The Executive Engineer, PHE, issued a duplicate cheque dated 22.3.95 for Rs.8,000 drawn in favour of the respondent. But till the date of filing the complaint in the District Forum the said amount of the cheque has not been credited to the respondent's Bank Account. The complainant (respondent herein) filed the complaint in the District Forum alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs (appellants herein) and demanding payment of the amount, interest thereon, costs and compensation. 3. The OPs (appellants herein) filed their written version. Besides one Shri Shyamal Chakraborty, Manager of UBI, Silchar Branch, filed an affidavit in support of the facts stated in the written statement/version. Appellants have admitted that the aforesaid cheque was deposited by the respondent in his account in their Bank. Their version is that the said cheque was misplaced in the course of Banking transaction and the same was immediately intimated to SBI Silchar Branch with a request to stop payment against the said cheque. The appellants approached the Executive Engineer, PHE Division II immediately by letter dated 28.2.95 for issuance of a duplicate cheque. Their version is that the said cheque was misplaced in the course of Banking transaction and the same was immediately intimated to SBI Silchar Branch with a request to stop payment against the said cheque. The appellants approached the Executive Engineer, PHE Division II immediately by letter dated 28.2.95 for issuance of a duplicate cheque. A duplicate cheque No. 19557/392 dated 22.3.95 drawn in favour of the respondent was sent vide letter dated 25.3.95. As the Treasury Officer refused to countersign the duplicate cheque due to expiry of the ceiling of Feb' 95 and it could not be signed by him in March, 95 as per Govt instruction the appellants again requested the Executive Engineer to issue a fresh duplicate cheque. On 21.3.96 the appellantNo.2 (OPNo. 2) collected a duplicate cheque in lieu of the earlier duplicate cheque. When he approached the complainant (respondent herein) to endorse the fresh duplicate cheque the latter refused to do so as the matter was sub-judice due to pendency of his complaint in the District Forum. The validity of the fresh duplicate cheque expired on 27.3.96. As alleged by the appellants the respondent did not co-operate With them and he himself was responsible for expiry of the validity. The appellants have pleaded that there was no lapse, negligence or deficiency of service on their part and that all along they made their sincere efforts to get the cheque amount collected as early as possible. 4. After hearing learned Advocates for both the parties and on perusal of the complaint, written version and evidence on record the learned District Forum held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank (appellant herein) and their service was defective according to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The OP Bank was directed to pay the cheque amount of Rs.8,000 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 6.3.95 till payment. Besides the Bank was held liable also to pay a cost of Rs.SOOA only to the complainant respondent. 5. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties, perused the memoran­dum of appeal, written statement of the respondent and other relevant papers. Besides, we have gone through the complaint, written version, evidence on record and other relevant papers in the original case record of the District Forum. 6. 5. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties, perused the memoran­dum of appeal, written statement of the respondent and other relevant papers. Besides, we have gone through the complaint, written version, evidence on record and other relevant papers in the original case record of the District Forum. 6. We agree with the learned District Forum that the complainant being the account holder of the OP Bank is a consumer within the meaning of section 2 (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act as he avails the Banking service for consideration. The Banks by investing the depositors' money earns a higher interest than what they give to the depositors. In fact, this difference is the consideration for which the Bank render Banking service to their account holder/ depositors. We, therefore, overrule the objection raised by OPs/appellants on this point. The complainant is entitled to seek redress in Consumer Forum for the deficiency of service on the part of the appellant Bank. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the power of attorney of the respondent is not valid as the person who gave it is already dead. In the instant case we are not concerned with this and hence we do not find it necessary to consider it. 8. We have carefully gone through the chain of events starting from deposit of the cheque in the appellant B ank as described by the respondent in the original complaint and by the appellant Bank in the written version, affidavit and memorandum of appeal. The cheque drawn on SBIis dated 10.2.95. As there is nothing on the record to show on which date the cheque was actually deposited we can presume that either it was deposited in the Bank Account that day itself or within a day or two thereafter. The respondent was informed by the Bank on 6.3.95 that his cheque was misplaced. The time from 10.2.95 or thereafter till 6.3195 may be regarded as normal time for collection of this particular cheque with all the formalities or passing it by Treasury etc. The District Forum has rightly held that the interest is payable from 6.3.95. 9. The appellant Bank took immediate steps to obtain the duplicate cheque on 25.3.95 from the concerned Executive Engineer. The process thereafter is a lengthy one. The District Forum has rightly held that the interest is payable from 6.3.95. 9. The appellant Bank took immediate steps to obtain the duplicate cheque on 25.3.95 from the concerned Executive Engineer. The process thereafter is a lengthy one. On receipt of the duplicate cheque appellant No.2 immediately presented the same to the SBI through Treasury Officer. But the Treasury Officer declined to pass the cheque on the ground that it was not endorsed by the Executive Engineer. Appellant No. 2 again approached the Executive Engineer. When he approached the Treasury Officer again he refused to accept the cheque as LOG for February, 95 expired. Even Deputy Commissioner could not help. Treasury Officer expressed his inability to sign the duplicate cheque in view of the standing Govt instructions as the validity of the ceiling for February, 95 expired. The duplicate cheque was sent to PHE Division for endorsement against LOG for March, 1995. As no action was taken the validity of duplicate cheque expired. At the request of the appellant Bank a fresh duplicate cheque was issued on 20.3.96 and it was collected by the appellant Bank on 21.3.96. But strangely enough the respondent/complainant refused to endorse the cheque on the ground that he filed a complaint in the District Forum and the matter was sub-judice. Had he endorsed the cheque the Bank could have presented the cheque in SBI in time to get the amount credited to his account. We are sure had he endorsed the cheque as requested by the Bank, District Forum would not have objected to it. Even after that he could have proceeded with his complaint for interest, compensation etc. It is true the appellant Bank could have also approacned the District Forum for giving direction to the respondent to endorse the cheque so that it could be presented to SBI, before expiry of the validity. Be that as it may, we do not consider it as a lapse on the part of the appellant Bank as the respondent did not co-operate with it. Respondent himself is responsible for the Bank's inability to collect this fresh duplicate cheque due to expiry of validity. 10. In the chain of events naifated above we find that there was deficiency or negligence on the part of the appellant at one point only, that is misplacement of the original cheque. Respondent himself is responsible for the Bank's inability to collect this fresh duplicate cheque due to expiry of validity. 10. In the chain of events naifated above we find that there was deficiency or negligence on the part of the appellant at one point only, that is misplacement of the original cheque. Thereafter the appellant Bank all along made some efforts to get a duplicate cheque issued and get it endorsed and again fresh duplicate issued by concerned Executive Engineer. The cheque in question is a Govt cheque drawn on SBI. It is not the cheque of appellant Bank. They only rendered the service of collection. In the process the parties like the issuing authority, the Executive Engineer, Treasury Officer and SBI are involved. For the bureaucratic procedure of LOG, expiry of validity of cheque etc. the appellant Bank cannot be held responsible. Unless the Treasury passes the cheque and SBI, gives the pay order the appellant Bank cannot collect it. We are convinced that the appellant Bank is in no way responsible for delay in collection of the cheque except for the misplacement of the original cheque. They got the duplicate cheque issued on 25.3.95. In our opinion the appellant Bank is liable to pay interest to the respondent at the rate of 12% per annum only for the period from 6.3.95 to 25.3.95. If the cheque of Rs. 8,000 drawn on.SBI, can not be collected for one reason or other the collecting Bank can not be made liable for payment of the amount unless of course the non collection is due to their fault. In the instant case we do not find any reasonable ground to believe that the appellant Bank is responsible for delay in collection of the cheque after issuance of the duplicate. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case we find that the appellants are not liable to pay Rs.8,000, the amount of the cheque drawn on SBI, till it is collected by them. As soon as it is collected the appellant Bank will credit it to the account of the respondent. If, however, there is delay of more than seven days in crediting the amount to the respondents' account after collection from SBI, the appellant Bank shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per /i annum on the said amount. If, however, there is delay of more than seven days in crediting the amount to the respondents' account after collection from SBI, the appellant Bank shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per /i annum on the said amount. If the cheque still remains uncollected the appellant Bank may withdraw it from Treasury/SBI, Silchar and return it to the respondent. We further direct that for the deficiency in service by way of misplacement of the cheque the appellant Bank shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the respondent for the period from 6.3.95 to 253.95. So far as the cost of Rs. 800 awarded by the District Forum is concerned we are not metined to interfere a with it. The appellant Bank shall pay this amount along with the interest as aforesaid within one month from this order. 12. In the result the appeal is partly allowed with above modification. 13. There is no order as to costs.