S.SANKARAN vs CANARA BANK

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.

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 "it is hard to understand that the Bank officials could not identify him."

"It is also to be added that the amount of the draft was only Rs. 2,000/- in respect of which much attention was not necessary. It appears that the refusal which took place was prompted not by lack of identification as is contended by the Bank, but because the Petitioner was too well-identified. What Weighed is not only the physical body of the Petitioner appearing at the counter with his draft, but all his previous history with the Bank"

. The State Commission has concluded that the refusal was nothing more than an act of vindictiveness which an institution like a Bank should refrain from resorting to. It, therefore, held that the Respondent Bank was guilty of a clear deficiency is service The State Commission also came to the finding that the Complainant had only suffered some mental agony and shame and humiliation. But the Commission has gone on to observe that "the Petitioner invited such humiliation by his own conduct. Having closed his account with the Respondent Bank with much noise, every reasoned person would have avoided going back to the same bank and would have instead presented the Draft to the Bank where he was having an account as that time. In fact that is what the Complainant also did after meeting with a refusal by the Canara Bank..,." So, according to the State Commission the Petitioner deliberately created the circumstances leading to the humiliation he suffered. Therefore, he cannot seek compensation before a Consumer Forum. "The Complaint before this forum (State Commission) is not a genuine one meant to get compensation for damages allegedly inflicted by other party, but this is a further ground of dispute between the complainant and the Bank. This kind of litigation should not be encouraged." While we appreciate the lucid order passed by the State Commission. We do not think that we will be justified in denying relief to the Petitioner on the ground that "discretion would have been the better part of valour", that he should have avoided going to the Canara Bank with which, it appears, he had developed bad relations. The Petitioner had a right to go to any Bank including the Canara Bank, for encashment of the Demand Draft and it was the duty of the Bank to have processed the Demand Draft professionally. It had no right to deal with the Petitioner in the manner in which it did and in refusing to encash the Demand Draft on an unjustified and untenable pretext. The error of judgment on the part of the Petitioner in dealing with a Bank with which he did not have good relations is not at par with the deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in dealing with a customer. In the result, we are of the view that the Petitioner is entitled to a nominal compensation for the mental agony and shame and humiliation to which he was subjected by the Bank. We, therefore, allow a compensation of Rs. 500/- only to the Petitioner and costs of Rs. 200/-. The order of the State Commission is modified to this extent.