Mr. Justice David Annoussamy, President—This is an appeal by the complainant.

2. To put it in a nutshell, the case of the complainant is that the opposite party refused to accept an open draft for an amount of Rs. 2,000/- issued in his name by Bangalore Branch of the same bank. The opposite party justified its action in saying that there was no proper identification of the complainant.

3. The District Forum after hearing the parties, dismissed the complaint by order dated 22.3.93 which is challenged in the present appeal.

4. The grounds of the appeal are as follows:—

(a) The identification is not necessary for paying cash for an open draft;

(b) The opposite party knew well the identity of the complainant.

5. The opposite party/respondent on his side contended that this appeal has no merit and further added that the appellant did not suffer any damages entitling him to compensation. We shall examine all the three points seriatim.

6. First, whether identification is necessary for the bank to pay cash for on open draft? The draft is usually couched in the following terms: “On demand pay to .... or order Rupees .... for value received”. This will show that a draft is a negotiable instrument. The bank on paying the amount is in no manner a loser. It is for the beneficiary of the draft to take care thereof. There may be also a series of endorsements on a draft and it will not be feasible to get identification of all the persons concerned. Until the contrary is proved, the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course (118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881). As per Section 85-A where any draft, that is an order to pay money, drawn by one office of a bank upon another office of the same bank for a sum of money payable to order on demand, purports to be endorsed by or on behalf of the payee, the bank is discharged by payment in due course. Such being the legal position any one interfering with the basic right of a negotiable instrument holder, would do so only at his own risk. For practical purposes a draft is on par with a currency note giving the holder of the instrument instant, immediate and unquestionable title. It is worth remembering that currency notes also are in the form of a negotiable instrument; they are all promises to pay. In fact, when a person insists on obtaining a draft instead of a cheque, it is for the reason that with a draft he can without any further condition obtain the money instantaneously whenever he wants. Therefore, as a general rule, the Bank to whom the demand draft is presented need not ask for identification. Even if the Bank pays to a person who has stolen the draft, there is no liability for the Bank.

7. The learned Counsel for the respondent Bank however contended that there are instructions issued by the Head Office to insist upon identification. An officer of the Bank may be bound by those instructions till they are latered down. But the Bank as such cannot make use of them against a customer. Any customer of the Bank or any person having any dealing with the Bank is only bound by the banking law as it appears in statutes and rules made thereunder and Court decisions interpreting the statutes. Therefore, the internal instructions of the Bank cannot shield the Bank, which is a party before us and which is bound by the banking law.

8. The learned Counsel for the respondent further contended that as per the decision of a Bench of the Bombay High Court in Tukaram Bapuji Nikatn v. The Belgaum Bank Limited (AIR 1976 Bombay-185) an identification was necessary. The portion relied upon reads as follows :—

“Ordinarily, a Bank issuing a draft cannot refuse to pay the amount thereof, unless there was some doubt as to the identity of the person presenting it as being or properly representing the person in whose favour it was drawn, or, in other words, unless there is reasonable ground for disputing the title of the person presenting the draft.”

9. It is to be noted that even in this proposit