S SANKARAN Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revision Petition against the order of the State Commission, Pondicherry passed on 26th November, 1993 in Appeal No. 35 of 1993. While holding that the Bank had not acted, fairly, commercially and indulged in an unbecoming act in refusing the Demand Draft of the Petitioner, the latter had not come before the Forum as a bonafide consumer seeking protection, but as a disputatious consumer.

(2.) THE fact of the case are that the Respondent Bank had refused to accept an open Demand Draft for Rs. 2,000/- in the name of the Petitioner which had been issued in his favour by the Bangalore Branch of the same Bank. The refusal of the encashment of the Demand Draft was on the ground that there was no proper identification of the complaint. The State Commission has recorded a very lucid order. As explained in that Order the open Demand Draft is an encashable instrument entitling the holder thereof to receive the payment against the same. It was not necessary for the Bank to insist upon the identification of the payee. As the State Commission had observed " even if the Bank pays to the person who has stolen the draft, there is no liability for the Bank". The State Commission has also taken note of the circumstances in which a Bank might be justified in insisting upon identification so as to prevent fraud, commission of any offence, a duty which is cast upon all citizens and institutional functionaries. However, there was no scope for doubting the identification of the petitioner in this case. As the Order of the State Commission points out, the Revision Petitioner had a Bank account with the Respondent Bank from 11th November, 1991 to 20th March, 1992. Itwason30th March, 1992 i.e. only after 10 days of closure of the account that he presented the Demand Draft for encashment. The State Commission has rightly observed