A.S.Venkatachalamoorthy, J: Being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No.19609 of 1990, the appellants have filed the above appeal.

2. The second respondent, a Chartered Accountant by profession, on 24.5.1990, obtained an uncrossed open demand draft for Rs.50,000 from Indian Overseas Bank, Cathedral Branch, Chennai encashable in the same Bank, but at Karaikudi Branch. According to the second respondent, he presented the draft for payment on 2.6.1990 but however the Bank entertained a difficulty with regard to identification and thereupon, the second respondent went to the Regional Office at Karaikudi and he got his signature attested by an Officer of Regional Office and the same was sent through his daughter to the Branch for encashment. The Bank failed to pay the amount to the daughter of the second respondent but on the other hand handed over the draft to the second respondent when he went there after some time following his daughter and hence there was deficiency of service by the Bank.

3. The second respondent approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Madras by filing O.P. No.8 of 1990 claiming compensation and for other reliefs.

4. The appellants resisted the said claim by contending that when the daughter of the second respondent presented the demand draft, despite non-establishment of identity of the bearer, the Branch was making arrangements

for payment while the second respondent rushed to the desk and took back the demand draft without encashment, abusing the staff. Hence, the allegation made by the second respondent against the Bank and its officials are baseless and the Bank had done what it legally expected to do.

5. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which enquired into the matter came to the conclusion that the explanation of the appellants that they were making arrangements for payment and that the second respondent rushed to the desk and took back the demand draft without encashment, cannot be accepted and that the case of the appellant that the law requires identification of the payee as pre-requisite for payment of an uncrossed open demand draft on presentation by the payee with endorsement for payment, cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter the Forum fixed the compensation at Rs.4,000 payable to the second respondent by the appellants under Sec.14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This prompted the appellants to file W.P. No.19609 of 1990.

6. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the same is not maintainable before this Court and directed the Registry to transmit the matter along with all concerned records to the State Consumer Forum forthwith for disposal in accordance with law and on merits.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended citing various judgments that the power conferred under Art.226 of Constitution of India on this Court is very wide and in the absence of any limitation in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this Court can entertain the writ petition and consider the same on merits. Secondly, it is contended that notwithstanding the fact that the Bank was not aware of the identity of the second respondent, who was holding then the demand draft in question with necessary identification by an officer of the Regional Office at Karaikudi, was making arrangements for payment while the second respondent rushed to the desk and took away the demand draft without encashment, abusing the staff.

8. As far as the first submission is concerned, it is settled law that before approaching this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, it is the bounden duty of a person to exhaust all alternate remedies. At the same time, it is not as if this Court has no power to entertain the writ petition when there are alternate remedies. Before entertaining such writ petition, Courts will see whether alternate remedy available is effective and further whether the alternate remedy will be a long dr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document