A five-day delay in encashing a demand draft has cost a nationalised bank Rs.10,000, which the state's top consumer commissioner has ordered it to pay for negligence in service.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission President Barkat Ali Zaidi and Members Salma Noor and V.K. Gupta ruled the money would compensate Sulekha Jain for the delay in honouring a draft for Rs.112,125 issued by the Central Bank of India's Pune branch in 2008.
Holding that there was "unjustifiable and inordinate delay" in the draft's information transmission process, the commission, in a recent order, said: "We feel inclined to uphold the judgment of the district consumer forum about the tortious liability of the Central Bank."
Agreeing with the forum, which ruled in favour of Jain, the commission said: "The bank should have made itself aware of the issuance of demand draft and payment should have been made immediately."
"It has not been shown to us that any particular time limit is fixed for deposit of a demand draft and its payment and we have also not been informed if there are any guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India about the time limit. We are, therefore, left on our own to determine as to what is reasonable and proper time which should elapse before a demand draft is honoured for payment after presentation," the commission said.
Zaidi said the forum was of the view that since the payment was not made despite a lapse of five days, the bank was liable for damages.
"We would say that in these days of quick and prompt communication systems five days should be considered more than sufficient for a bank to collect the requisite information about the money bill and the delay makes it liable for damages," Zaidi said.
The bank has the option of appealing against the state commission order in the national consumer commission.
Jain said in her complaint that on March 19, 2008, she deposited in her Delhi bank the demand draft dated March 14, 2008, issued by the Central Bank of India, Pune branch.
She said her bank sent the draft to the Central Bank of India, service branch, Delhi, but it was returned with the remark "Advice not received. Present again" on March 21, 2008.
The complainant said the draft was again presented in her bank in Trinagar March 24, 2008, and it was credited to her account on March 26, 2008.
Jain moved the district forum alleging negligence by the Central Bank and sought compensation of Rs.3.8 lakh, saying that the draft dated March 14, 2008, should have ideally been honoured by March 21, 2008.
In their written statement, officials of the Central Bank denied all of Jain's allegations and pleaded that according to Reserve Bank of India instructions and to avoid the possibility of fraud while encashing a demand draft, they had to seek confirmation from the issuing branch and the delay occurred in this process.
(Rahul Chhabra can be contacted at rahul.c@ians.in)
