ORAL ORDER

Per Mr. Justice S.P.Tavade, Hon’ble President The appellant/original opponent has preferred present appeal against the impugned order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Solapur. It is alleged by the complainant/respondent herein that she had paid an amount of Rs.85,000/- and got a demand draft on 16.01.1996 drawn on the name of opponent bank and she presented the said demand draft in her account in Bank of India. Said demand draft ought to have been honoured on 17.01.1996 because it was mentioned in the demand draft that ‘Pay on demand’. On enquiry, it was revealed that the appellant informed the Bank of India that there was no advice and asked the respondent to present it again. Accordingly, demand draft was presented again on 18.01.1996 and on 19.01.1996, same reply was given by the appellant again and ultimately the amount of demand draft was credited in the account on 24.01.1996. The appellant bank was deficient in service by not honouring the demand draft which was required to be paid on demand. Hence, consumer complaint came to be filed.

Appellant/opponent appeared in consumer complaint. It was contended that there was practice of paying demand draft as per advice of the bank who issues the demand draft. It was also contended that the appellant received advice on 22.01.1996 and accordingly payment was made. There was a delay of 7 days in making payment. It was also contended that the advice was not received in time and hence payment could not be made by the appellant bank and hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opponent bank.

Appellant and respondent led their evidence and on going through the material on record, learned District Commission has allowed the consumer complaint directing opponent to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- along with interest @18%

p.a. for delayed period. The order is challenged in this appeal.

Heard the learned authorized person for the appellant Mr.Dashrad Kadkam. Notice was issued to the respondent. She is not residing on her address.

Hence, the appeal is proceeded ex-parte against the respondent.

It is admitted fact that on 16.01.1996, respondent had taken a demand draft for Rs.85,000/- by depositing said amount in Sarswat Bank. Said demand draft was drawn in the name of the appellant. Said demand draft was deposited by the respondent in her account in Bank of India on 17.01.1996. On the same day, the appellant informed respondent that they had not advice and hence respondent to re-deposit the demand draft. Accordingly, demand draft was presented on 18.01.1996 and 19.01.1996, but no payment was made by the appellant as advice was not sent by issuing branch and ultimately, the demand draft was encahsed and payment was made on 24.01.1996. It appears from transaction that the respondent had deposited entire amount of demand draft at Pune and also paid charges of demand draft amounting to Rs.117/- in Saraswat Bank. Said demand draft was drawn in the name of appellant bank. Therefore, it was expected from the officers of the appellant to verify the issuance of demand draft and should have paid the amount on presentation, but the payment was delayed for 7 days. So it is established that the appellant bank was deficient in service for not making payment of demand draft. Reason given by the appellant bank is not sufficient as the entire amount was paid by the respondent for securing payment at Solapur. Demand draft should have been encashed on demand only. Said wording is mentioned in the demand draft, but appellant has taken 7 days for payment of demand draft. So, the respondent is deprived of amount of demand draft for 7 days and caused mental agony. Accordingly, Learned District Commission has right held that the appellant was deficient in service and order passed is legal and correct. We feel that there is no need to interfere in the order. We find there is no merit in the appeal. Hence, the order.

ORDER

1) Appeal is hereby dis