ORDER As per Hon'ble Smt. Veena Misra, Member: 1. These appeals, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 3-3-2008 in Complaint No. OS/2007 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the 'District Forum' for short) whereby the complaint filed by the complainant was partly allowed against A.P. No.4 and it was stated that as there was separate cause of action, the complainant could file separate complaint against O.P. No.1 to A.P. No.3. Aggrieved by the order O.P. No.4 and the complainant have filed the aforesaid appeals. 2. Brief facts of the case are that O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are different offices of Courier Company through which the complainant had sent sealed envelope to be delivered to his father Shri S.B. Mishra at Raipur. The said envelope contained an account payee cheque in favour of Shiv Balak Mishra for Rs.40,000/- and also unsigned requisition slip for issuing new cheque book. The said letter was handed over to 0 .P. No.2 on 3-10-06 under consignment receipt No. 82065325 on payment of Rs. 30/-. As the said envelope did not reach the addressee till 610-06, the complainant enquired about non-delivery from A.P. No.2 who told that the envelope reached Raipur office but it was misplaced before it could be delivered. As per averments in the complaint, on receiving the aforesaid information the complainant intimated his father and wife on phone and asked his father to intimate the bank so that cheque No. 047753 could not be misused. It was further averred that the requisition slip was not signed but the same was to be signed by the wife of the complainant as she was joint account holder. As the envelope did not reach the addressee and the requisition slip was not signed, there was no possibility of issuance of new cheque book in favour of the account holder. But on 23-10-06 when the complainant approached the bank/O .P. No.4 for issuance of new cheque book, he was told that on 10-10-06 new cheque book containing cheque Nos. 055581 to 055590 was issued. On enquiry about the balance in the account, the complainant was told that on 11-10-06 an amount of Rs. 38,000/has been withdrawn vide cheque No. 055581. But on 23-10-06 when the complainant approached the bank/O .P. No.4 for issuance of new cheque book, he was told that on 10-10-06 new cheque book containing cheque Nos. 055581 to 055590 was issued. On enquiry about the balance in the account, the complainant was told that on 11-10-06 an amount of Rs. 38,000/has been withdrawn vide cheque No. 055581. The complainant objected to the issuance of such cheque book in absence of signature of either the complainant or his wife on the requisition slip. It was alleged in the complaint that the amount was debited from the account due to negligence on part of O.P. No. 4/bank as concerned employee of the bank failed to tally the signature on the requisition slip with the specimen signature. 3. O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the District Forum and rio reply was filed on their behalf. O.P. No.3 resisted the complaint and denied the averments made in the complaint. However, it was admitted that envelope sent by the complainant was received at the office of O.P. No.3 but before it could be delivered, the consignment was stolen. Report in tins regard was also lodged with Sundar Nagar Police Station. It was further averred that complainant is not a Consumer of O.P. No.3 hence there is no question of any deficiency in service on part of the said O.P. 4. O.P. No.4 submitted in its written version that the bank not committed any deficiency in service. Stop payment instruction was issued with regard to cheque No. 047753 for Rs. 40,0001- and in compliance of the said instruction O.P. No.4 stopped payment of the said cheque. It was averred that the complainant had given signed requisition slip and in consequence new cheque book was issued by the concerned employee. After receipt of new cheque book a sum of Rs.38,0001- was withdrawn on 11-10-06 vide newly issued cheque No. 055581. Hence there was no deficiency in service on part of the bank. It was farther averred that in case envelope was lost the complainant should have taken action against the Courier Company but the complainant has failed to do so and initiated proceedings against the bank on false pretext. It was further averred that though stop payment instruction was issued to the bank regarding the lost cheque but no instruction regarding non-issuance of new cheque book was given. It was further averred that though stop payment instruction was issued to the bank regarding the lost cheque but no instruction regarding non-issuance of new cheque book was given. In case such information was given, O.P. No.4 would not have issued new cheque book. It was averred in the written version that the complainant had himself taken out the amount and has filed false complaint. The same may be dismissed. 5. As noted earlier, District Forum passed the impugned order against O.P. No. 4/bank alone. Hence O.P. No.4 has filed Appeal No. 196/08 whereas the complainant has filed Appeal No. 197108. 6. Final arguments heard. Record perused. 7. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred in this order as Complainant and O.Ps. Learned Counsel for O.P. No. 4/appellant in Appeal No.196/08 submitted that the order is erroneous in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that there is misjoinder of parties regarding O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Learned Counsel for O. P. No.4 further submitted that handwriting expert has tallied the signature on the cheque D-l and D-2 with the specimen signature where as he ought to have tallied from the signature on the complainant. He further submitted that the complainant's wife is an educated lady and is also joint account holder, hence she herself might have taken the cheque book and withdrawn the amount from the bank. He further submitted that the District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that complainant issued stop payment instruction regarding cheque but failed to issue any instructions regarding non-issuance of cheque book. Hence the complainant has not come before the District Forum with clean hand but the Forum has failed to appreciate this fact. He further submitted• that relief as claimed by the complainant is against provisions of law hence cannot be granted. He also submitted that the District Forum ought to have imposed joint and several liability on the 0 Ps whereas the Forum has erred by passing an order only against O.P. No.4. He prayed that the appeal filed by O.P. No.4 may be allowed. 8. Learned Counsel for complainant/appellant in Appeal No.. 197 /07 submitted that though the District Forum directed refund of amount of cheque of Rs. He prayed that the appeal filed by O.P. No.4 may be allowed. 8. Learned Counsel for complainant/appellant in Appeal No.. 197 /07 submitted that though the District Forum directed refund of amount of cheque of Rs. 38,000/- but has awarded only a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards mental harassment which is too low looking into the inconvenience suffered by the complainant. He further submitted that the complainant had to get the signature etc., verified from the handwriting expert and only towards that head he had to incur an expenditure of Rs. 5,000/-. District Forum has failed to consider the details of expenditure incurred by the complainant submitted before the District Forum. He further submitted that District Forum has further erred by not providing relief against O.P. Nos. 1,2 and 3 though there was deficiency on their part as the envelope handed over to the Courier Company was lost by it. Hence order passed by the District Forum may be modified and the complainant may be properly compensated. 9. Learned Counsel for O.P. No.3 submitted that the O.P. No.3 has not committed any deficiency in service as delivery of envelope had become impossible due to the fact that the consignment was stolen from the Luna of the representative of O.P. No.3 R. Raja Rao and regarding this the agent R. Raja Rao had intimated the police and lodged the complaint. Hence there was no deficiency in service on part of O.P. No.3. He submitted that the order passed by the District Forum does not require any interference. 10. So far as the liability of O.P. No.4 is concerned, District Forum has based the findings on the report of handwriting expert. We do not wish to interfere with the same as it appears to be just and proper. So far as the plea of learned Counsel for O.P. No. 4/appellant in Appeal No. 196/08 regarding wrongly exonerating O.P. Nos. 1,2 and 3 in the order is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that in view of admitted position that the envelop was handed over to the Courier Company to be delivered at Raipur and the same was also received at Raipur Office of the Courier Company but was not delivered to the complainant's father, deficiency on part of the Courier is obvious. The plea taken by O.P. No.3 in this regard is that the consignment was stolen when the agent of O.P. had gone to deliver letter at Centurian Bank, Bhaisthan and report in this regard was lodged with the police. Looking to the fact that the incident of loss of consignment is alleged to have taken place on 5-10-06 but the report was lodged on 31-10-06, the delay in lodging report is inordinate and no explanation has been offered for the said delay. Prior to lodging of report the cheque book was issued and money was withdrawn from the account of the complainant. In the circumstances we are of the considered opinion that preliminary cause for the loss suffered by the complainant was the loss of the letter containing requisition slip, hence O.P. No.1 to O.P. No.3 are also liable jointly and severally for paying damages due to deficiency in service on this part. 11. In the circumstances both the aforesaid appeal are partly allowed. The order of the District Forum is modified. It is direct that (i) O.P. No. 4/Bank shall pay to the complainant a sum of RS.38,000/(Rupees Thirty eight thousand) together with interest @ 9% p.a.w.e.f. 11-10-2006 till the date of payment. (ii) O.P. No.4 shall be liable to bear the expenses of fee of Rs.5,000/(Rupees five thousand) paid by the complainant to the handwriting expert and also a sum of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) towards his share of cost of proceedings which is quantified at Rs.2,0001-. (iii) O.P. Nos. 1,2 and 3 shall jointly and severally be liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) towards mental harassment, inconvenience and loss suffered due to negligence on their part. (iv) O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 shall also be liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,0001- (Rupees one thousand) as their share towards cost of proceedings which is quantified at Rs. 2,000/-. Appeal Partly Allowed.