T.M.Hussain vs MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE

THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Kozhikode in O.P. No. 409/1997. The complainant is the appellant.

THE complainant took two demand drafts, one for Rs. 13,000/- and the other for Rs. 15,000/- on 13.3.1997. He alleged that he reported the loss of drafts to the opposite party on the next day itself and even though the complainant complied with all the necessary formalities required by the opposite party Bank, the Bank refuses to pay back Rs. 28,000/- the total value of the draft. The opposite party contended that they issued a stop payment memo to the drawee Bank, on getting information from the complainant that the demand drafts are missing, later they got a letter from Riya Travels stating that on the strength of these open demand drafts, which are endorsed to them they already issued three air tickets for Gulf Air from Bombay to Doha and they are the holder in due course of these drafts and when they presented these demand drafts to the drawee Bank a service branch of the opposite party at Mumbai they were not given the amount stating that they have received a letter from the drawee Bank that the drafts were reported missing and hence by that letter, they informed the opposite party that the amount covered by these two demand drafts should be paid back to the complainant and that is why they did not pay the amount of two drafts to the complainant. The District Forum considered the question whether the case of loss of drafts put forward by the complainant is really true. It observed that the complainant took the drafts on 13.3.1997 and as they were lost he reported this loss to the Bank on the next day on 14.3.1997. In cross-examination the complainant stated as follows : "xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx" District Forum observed that the above statement of complainant that he sent the two drafts to payee, Aboobacker soon after it was purchased from the Bank militates against the case put forward by the complainant. It also came to the conclusion that when he reported to the Bank on 14.3.1997 that these drafts are lost, the draft must be in transit either by post or through a courier service. The District Forum rightly observed if the drafts are lost while in the custody of the complainant as alleged in the complaint, no question of sending these drafts to Aboobacker the payee arises. Once the drafts have been delivered to the payee or his agent the purchaser is not entitled to issue instruction of stop payment of the demand draft to the payee and so the issuing Bank can thereafter pay back the amount of the draft to the purchaser of the draft only with the consent of the payee. In the circumstances, the District Forum was right in holding no deficiency has been established in this case. We do not find any error in the reasoning or conclusion arrived by the District Forum. Complainant''s statement in cross-examination would reveal that he already sent the draft to the payee before he approached the Bank on 14.3.1997 Ext. B4 which is a letter sent by Riya Travels to the opposite party shows that two demand drafts were open drafts and on the strength of these drafts they issued three air tickets. The District Forum observed that from Ext. B4 one thing is clear that is, payee of these drafts endorsed it to Riya Travels and the latter are in the position of a holder in due course of these instruments and hence they can claim the amount from the drawee Bank. In the circumstances Bank cannot be found fault with for not paying the amount covered by the demand drafts. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. We make it clear the disposal of the complaint will not preclude the complainant from approaching a Civil Court and establishing that there is no valid endorsement. Appeal dismissed.