STATE BANK OF MYSORE Vs. N G RAMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by opposite party No.2, is directed against the order dated 17.5.1993, passed by the District Forum, Tumkur, in Complt. No. DCFT.62/complt. /92, directing the appellant-O. P. No.2, to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation to the complainant. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: 1. The complainant-respondent No.1 herein, purchased a demand draft for a sum of Rs.80,000/- from respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.1, at Bikaner-Jaipur, Siyana, Rajasthan on 28.5.1992 and presented the said demand draft for payment to the appellant on 9.6.1992. The appellant did not make the payment of the said amount to the complaint stating that the said demand draft was not signed by two authorised signatories. The complainant wrote a letter to respondent No.2-Bank at Jaipur informing about the dishonour of the said demand draft made by the appellant. The complainant thereafter made a complaint on 11.6.1992, stating that the dishonour of the said demand draft was due to the negligence of the appellant-Bank in consequence of which he did suffer a loss and mental agony and sought compensation for the same.

(2.) While the complaint was so pending, the complainant received a letter from respondent No.2-Bank, stating that the dishonour of the demand draft made by the appellant-Bank was not proper and it directed the appellant-Bank to pass the said demand draft of the complainant. The said letter of respondent No.2-Bank addressed to the appellant-Bank reads as under: "our D. D. No.913420 dated 25.5.92 for Rs.80,000/- returned by you for want of second authorised signatory of the Bank. It is brought to our notice that the above DD is returned with the reason "d. D. not signed by two authorised signatory. " This rule is applicable for those branches where more than two officers are posted. Siyana is a rural branch where the branch manager is the sole signatory. Our all the D. D. above Rs.50,000/- are passed up till now. Please honour the D. D. if otherwise in order. " The appellant-Bank, thereafter made the payment of the amount of the draft to the complainant.

(3.) The appellant-Bank admitted the fact that the complainant presented the demand draft on 9.6.92 and it did not honour the said demand draft as it did not contain signatures of 2 authorised persons as averred by the complainant.