ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioner was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.
2. Undisputed facts of the case are that two cheques-one dated 4.8.1997 for Rs. 49,858 and another dated 5.8.1998 for Rs. 27,000 were issued by the 2nd respondent, Himachal Carpets, Poenta Sahib, H.P., in favour of the petitioner/complainant who deposited this with the first respondent bank at its Defence Colony Branch, New Delhi. But they never got credited in favour of the complainant, as according to the respondent bank, the cheques had been misplaced during transit. Matter was taken up with the Bank but when the issue was not getting settled, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who while holding the bank to be deficient in rendering service directed the second respondent to issue fresh cheque and also directed the first respondent bank to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of depositing the cheques, i.e., 14.1.98, compensation of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 500 as costs.
3. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner as also the first respondent bank filed appeals before the State Commission who after hearing the parties dismissed both the appeals. Hence this revision petition has been filed by the complainant Modern Woollens, for enhancement of compensation.
4. We have gone through the material on record and heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we have to determine the deficiency on the part of any party and compensation with that regard only. In this case, there is a concurrent finding of fact rendered by both the lower Fora that bank was deficient in rendering service to the petitioner/complainant. The only question was with regard to the compensation. There were two parts of the order passed by the District Forum that respondent No. 2 was directed to issue fresh cheque and secondly, the bank was to pay interest @ 12% p.a., on the deposited amounts till the date of payment along with compensation of Rs. 1,000 and cost of Rs. 500.
5. After perusal of material on record, we find that it is the case of the complainant before the State Commission that the second respondent firm has since been dissolved. The State Commission, in our view, rightly held that it was a partnership firm and there is nothing in law which stops the complainant to recover the amount from the erstwhile partner.
6. As far as deficiency on the part of the bank is concerned, in our view, the compensation could have been either in the form of a lump sum amount or by way of interest. In the present case, the petitioner has been granted interest @12% p.a. which, in our view, is adequate compensation, in view of which we do not find any merit in this revision petition, which is dismissed.
7. No order as to costs.