JUDGMENT 1. Respondent No.1 is said to have remitted a sum of Rs. 1500/- for purchasing shares. This amount was sent through Speed Post on 4th Sept., 1993. This was sent to Bank of India, Chandigarh Branch. As the shares were not made available to the complainant respondent No. 1, he filed a complaint before the Divisional Forum, constituted under the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act. 1987. He attributed part of delay to the postal authorities and also lodged claim against the Bank of India. As there was failure on the part of Union of India to put in appearance before the Consumer Forum, an award was passed against it. The Union of India was directed to pay compensation to respondent No 1. An application was preferred by the Union of India for setting aside the exparte proceedings. This application was dismissed. An appeal was taken. This appeal also stands dismissed. This is how the present writ petition came to be filed in this Court 2. It is not in dispute that a sum of Rs. 1500/- has been refunded by the Bank of India and as a matter of fact, even the Divisional Forum did not give any direction to the Union of India to refund a sum of Rs. 1500/-to respondent No. 1. There was a direction regarding payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 3000/- which liability was fixed upon Union of India, which is being challenged in this petition. It be seen that the Bank had received the amount in question and if this be the situation, then the Divisional Forum should have called upon the record of the Bank and examined as to when the letter in question was received by the Bank. But without doing so. the liability as indicated above, has been fixed upon the Union of India. 3. The stand of the respondent Bank is that every day large number of cheques are received by the Bank. It is also stated that as there are two branches of this Bank in Sector 17 at Chandigarh, therefore, it was not possible for the Bank to give the requisite information to respondent No. 1. 3. The stand of the respondent Bank is that every day large number of cheques are received by the Bank. It is also stated that as there are two branches of this Bank in Sector 17 at Chandigarh, therefore, it was not possible for the Bank to give the requisite information to respondent No. 1. It is also urged that the Union of India did not furnish the particulars to the Bank and when the complaint was filed under the Act of 1987, it was not in a position to put across its point of view. 4. The stand taken by the respondent Bank cannot be accepted. Once a letter is received by the Bank then, it was the responsibility of the Bank to deal with the same. It is not the duty of the postal authorities to keep on giving information to the addressee after the letter is duly delivered to it. Merely because such an information was not furnished before the District Consumer Forum by the Union of India. would not furnish a ground to shift the initial liability which was to be shouldered by the Bank to Union of India. In these circumstances, the order passed by the Consumer-Forum fixing the liability of compensation on Union of India is set aside. This compensation amount of Rs.3000/- shall be paid by the respondent Bank to the complainant respondent No.1 Let this amount be paid to him within a period of one month from the date, a copy of this order is made available to the respondent bank by the respondent No.1. In case, the amount is not released as directed, the respondent No.1 shall be entitled to interest. The rate of interest shall he 6 percent. 5. Disposed of as such.