A bank is not deficient in service by refusing to issue pay orders to customers, as there is no legal obligation or liability to grant such a facility.

Mr. M.L. Tiwari, Member—Central Bank of India, Opposite Party/Appellant filed an Appeal by being aggrieved by the Order passed by the District Forum, Bhopal in case No. 4/93 on 29.5.93 granting an amount of Rs. 5,600/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the Complainant/Respondent as compensation, with the further direction that in case, the Opposite party, bank refused to issue pay order at the request of the complainant in future, then on each occasion the opposite party, will pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 50/- as compensation.

2. The points to be resolved in this Appeal are, whether the District Forum under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has a right to grant such a relief Under Section 14 of the Act? Whether the relief granted by the District Forum by awarding Rs. 5,600/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and the direction to the bank, to issue pay order as and when the Complainant. Respondent requests and on each occasion bank will pay to the Complainant/Respondent Rs. 50/- as compensation is right ?

3. The case of the Complainant before the District Forum was that the pay orders were being issued by the Bank, Appellant in the course of normal banking practice and they were being issued right from 30.1.92 to 31.10.92, whether the refusal to issue pay orders will be called as deficiency in service on the part of the bank ? The bank contended that the pay orders are issued, for making payments of their own expenses and charges, and that the facility is not available to the customers. The learned District Forum, was of the view that as an earlier occasions the bank, Appellant/Opposite Party issued Twenty-five pay orders right from 21.12.91 to 19.4.92 and charge for such pay orders was Rs. 25/-. Now the change of practice and to force a customer that instead of pay orders the demand Drafts be issued.

4. The reasoning given by the learned District Forum in Para 6 of the Order is that the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party has not shown any banking rule prohibiting the issue of pay orders to the customers. The burden to prove that the complainant had a right under the banking rules to have the facility of the pay orders was on the Complainant/Respondent If a facility was granted to show a favour to a particular customer and which was ultimately found to be wrong by the successor of the previous Bank Manager. The customers cannot be allowed to say that a facility which the banking rules procedure does not permit should be continued for ever.

5. The learned District Forum made vague observations that the practice followed by the bank, Opposite Party in issuing pay orders to the complainant must have some legal origin that Forum should have put its finger on that legal origin and the legal origin cannot be perused by the favorable practice followed by a person.

6. The learned District Forum lost sight of the fact that the damages claimed by the Complainant/Respondent from 30.1.92 to 31.8.92 and a list of transaction with other banks, i.e., Allahabad Bank, Bhopal, State Bank of India, Bhopal, Central Bank of India, Sagar, Punjab National Bank, they have charged for draft. They have never granted him the facility of pay order, when all the banks, granted, Central Bank of India did not grant him, the facility of pay order, how he expected that facility from the Appellant/Opposite party?

7. The observations that the bank being nationalized and as an instrumentality of the State, it is bound to act in a just, fair and reasonable manner consistent with certain norms and its Officers cannot act on their whim, fancy or caprice, their actions must be based on reason and relevance. These observations by the District Forum are unwanted in the present case.

8. The very fact that the list of the Demand Drafts issued by the various banks charging Rs. 75/-, every time is furnished by the respondent himself. So if a pay order facility is not furnished by the other nationalized banks, this was a facility