The main legal point established in the judgment is that once a bank draft is delivered to the payee, the purchaser is not entitled to ask the bank to stop the payment, and the bank can stop the payment only if the money has not been actually given to the payee.

Mr. Justice Choudhury S.N. Mishra, President—The Punjab National Bank, Mahabir Chowk, Ranchi, through its Manager as well as Punjab National Bank Branch, Ranjeet Road, Jamnagar were the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the Court below, are the appellants before us against the judgment and order dated 13.6.2000 on the file of the District Forum, Ranchi whereby the appellant No. 2 namely, Punjab National Bank, Jamnagar Branch has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 9,500/- being the amount of the disputed Bank Draft along with 12% interest p.a. besides a sum of Rs 10,000/- by way of compensation for mental agony as well as Rs. 3,000/- was also assessed as cost to be paid along with the principal amount aforesaid.

2. The short facts giving rise to the disputes are that the complainant/respondent purchased a Demand Draft of Rs. 9,500/- from the appellant No. 1 on 18.12.1992 along with other two demand drafts for the same amount payable at Jamnagar Branch in favour of one Suresh Thakur. Out of the aforesaid three drafts, one draft namely, Draft No. 193/92 was credited in the account of the payee through the collecting Bank namely, Nawagam Cooperative Bank on 6.1.1993. The complainant, on the assumption, of the said drafts having been lost in transit, sent a registered letter to both the appellants requesting them to stop the payment. The appellant No. 1 namely, Ranchi Branch has accordingly informed the Jamnagar Branch to stop the payment. Unfortunately, one of the drafts for Rs. 9,500/- was encashed and credited in the account of the payee namely, Suresh Thakur through the clearing Bank on 6.1.1993. Admittedly, however, further payments were stopped against the remaining two drafts. It is alleged that even after having stopped the payment both through the registered letter as well as telegram the payment has been made ignoring the specific instructions in this regard. On the aforesaid allegations the complainant approached the District Forum for relief.

3. On being noticed, the appellants appeared and filed their response stating, inter alia, that before receiving the intimation by the Bank, one demand draft for Rs. 9,500/- was already credited in the account of Suresh Thakur through the clearing Bank on 6.1.1993. However, the payment against the remaining two drafts were stopped immediately on receipt of the telegram on 8.1.1993 alleged to have been sent by the complainant. The District Forum, after having heard the parties, has held that there has been no deficiency on the part of the appellant No. 1 Ranchi Branch of the Bank since, on receipt of instructions from the complainant, the same day the Jamnagar Branch was informed to stop the payment. However, the appellant No. 2 namely, Jamnagar Branch of the Bank was found deficient in rendering its services while crediting the amount of the demand draft, in question, in spite of instructions having been sent by the complainant and accordingly passed the order which is under challenge before us as stated above.

4. Having regard to the pleadings of the parties and the submissions raised on their behalf the only question arises as to whether appellant No. 2 Jamnagar Branch of the Bank was in any way responsible in crediting the amount in the account of the payee ignoring the specific instructions of the complainant in this regard. It may be mentioned here that two drafts were purchased on 18.2.1992 and were sent to the payee namely, Suresh Thakur through registered letter on 19.12.1992 and the third draft was purchased on 21.12.1992 for the same amount in favour of Suresh Thakur which was also sent to him through registered post on the following day i.e. 22.12.1992. According to the complainant, the Ranchi Branch informed the Jamnagar Branch to stood the payment. It also appears that the complainant sent a telegram to Jamnagar Branch which was received only on 8.1.1993. Such letters and telegrams were sent on the assumption that the drafts purchased by the complainant hav