B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) ( 2 ) DR. Sonia Hurrash waives service of notice for respondent-Bank. At the joint request of the learned Counsels for the parties, all these petitions are heard and decided finally by this common judgment and order. ( 3 ) HEARD learned Senior Advocate Mr. Vakharia with Ms. Avani Mehta for petitioner in all these matters and learned Advocate General, Mr. S. N. Shelat with Dr. Hurra for respondents. ( 4 ) ALL these petitions are disposed of by this common order as they are arising out of the common judgment and order passed by the National Consumer Disputes redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short "national Commission") allowing first Appeal Nos. 418 to 428 of 1994 filed by the respondent-State Bank of India against the judgment and order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal commission, Gujarat State (for short "state Commission") allowing the complaint nos. 186 to 196 of 1993 filed by the petitioner-Co-operative Bank against the respondent-State Bank of India and directing the respondent-State Bank of India to pay interest @ 16% to the petitioner-complainant for the delayed payment and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs in each matter. ( 5 ) ). It is the case of the petitioner-Bank that it requires money to meet with the demands of its primary members-societies and for this purpose, it is required to keep huge amounts in the current accounts and also by way of term deposits. It keeps its money with the respondent-State Bank of India, which is the largest nationalised Bank of India having vast resources. The amount outstanding to the credit of term deposits on maturity is transferred to the current account of the complainant so that the complainant can issue cheques for cash payments. These payments are to be made by the complainant in the usual course of its business of providing financial assistance to its member-societies. The petitioner-Bank is the current holder, therefore, it can withdraw the whole or part of the amount standing to its credit at any time with the respondent-Bank. Admittedly, current account holder does not earn any interest as the current account holders are not entitled for interest, but the Bank can always utilize the money and earn income from the amount standing to the current account holders. Admittedly, current account holder does not earn any interest as the current account holders are not entitled for interest, but the Bank can always utilize the money and earn income from the amount standing to the current account holders. ( 6 ) THERE was a common grievance in all the 11 complaints filed by the petitioner-Bank before the Commission that it had issued cheques, which were not honoured on time by the respondent-State Bank of India. Therefore, the respondent-Bank was guilty of deficiency in service and accordingly, it had to compensate the petitioner-complainant Bank for the loss it had suffered. Therefore, the petitioner-complaint Bank filed 11 complaints before the State commission for awarding 20% interest on the delayed payment with compensation. As stated earlier, all the complaints came to be partly allowed by the State commission and instead of claim of 20%, the State Commission awarded 16% interest to the petitioner-Bank and the respondent-State Bank of India was directed to pay interest to the petitioner-Bank @ 16% p. a. for the delayed payment and also to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- each as compensation in each complaint and also cost of Rs. 1,000/- ( 7 ) AS stated earlier, aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the State Commission, the respondent-State Bank of India filed First Appeal nos. 418 to 428 of 1994 before the National Commission under Sec. 20 (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Apt, 1986 (for short "the Act" ). All the appeals came to be allowed by the National Commission by its judgment and order dated 10-8-2000 (Annexure-A) and the judgment and order passed by the State commission dated 4-4-1994 (Annexure-B) allowing the complaints came to be quashed and all the complaints were dismissed and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs. This common judgment and order dated 10-8-2000 (Annexure-A) is challenged by the petitioner-complainant-Bank before this Court by way of all these writ petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 8 ) NATIONAL Commission mainly considered two questions : (I) whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the respondent-State Bank of India or not? and (ii) if there was any deficiency, then due to such deficiency of service any actual loss was suffered by the complainant Bank or not? ( 8 ) NATIONAL Commission mainly considered two questions : (I) whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the respondent-State Bank of India or not? and (ii) if there was any deficiency, then due to such deficiency of service any actual loss was suffered by the complainant Bank or not? ( 9 ) FROM the judgment (Annexure-A) delivered by the National Commission allowing all the first appeals filed by the respondent-Bank it is clear that after appreciating the evidence on record, it has come to the conclusion that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the respondent-State Bank of India. It is further held that the complainant Bank had not issued any notice to the respondent-Bank and in all fairness the complainant should have given a reasonable notice to the State Bank of India that it was going to withdraw huge amounts of money from it. It has also held that the complainant Bank failed to prove any actual loss suffered by it due to so-called deficiency of service on the part of the State Bank of India. It is further observed that the amount standing in to the current account held by the complainant did not carry any interest still the complainant Bank claimed interest on the amount of cheques produced by it. The National Commission has further observed in its judgment that". . . . IT may well be that the Complainant has suffered financially because of delayed payment of the cheques by one or two days as the case may. But the loss or detriment has to be proved. . . ". ( 10 ) LEARNED Senior Advocate, Mr. Vakharia appearing for the petitioner in all these petitions vehemently submitted that even if the complainant has not suffered actual financial loss due to delayed payment of cheques, it cannot be said that the petitioner-Bank was not entitled for interest. Mr. Vakharia further submitted that the National Commission materially erred in holding that there was a delayed payment of the cheques by one of two days. According to him, the payment was not made for a number of days. Therefore, at last notices were issued to the respondent-Bank after the delayed payment of cheques and the respondent-Bank was called upon to pay 20% interest on the delayed payment. According to him, the payment was not made for a number of days. Therefore, at last notices were issued to the respondent-Bank after the delayed payment of cheques and the respondent-Bank was called upon to pay 20% interest on the delayed payment. He, however, admitted that regular notices were issued after the realisation of their cheques by the respondent-Bank. However, the submission of Mr. Vakharia was that they presented the cheques from 28-4-1992 always with forwarding letters and the respondent-Bank was called upon to pay interest if they are unable to honour the cheques on time. These letters can be construed as notice given to the respondent-Bank. ( 11 ) ). It is true that by the letters dated 28-4-1992 and other letters addressed by the petitioner-Bank to the respondent-Bank, they intimated the respondent- bank that if the cheques-are not honoured on time, then it will have to pay 20% interest p. a. , but that can never be termed as notice. It was short of intimation and nothing else. Notice for interest on delayed payment was required to be issued by the petitioner Bank before the cheques were honoured. In the instant case, the petitioner Bank waited till the cheques were honoured and it is only after the cheques were honoured, the petitioner-Bank issued notice calling upon the respondent-Bank to pay 20% p. a. on the delayed payment. It is true that in some cases there was delay of more than one or two days. Few days here or there will not take any difference. It is a way of expressing and National commission has accordingly observed that there may be delayed payment of the cheques by one or two days. In that view of the matter, first contention of learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Vakharia on the point of interest has to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected. ( 12 ) ). Mr. Vakharia, then submitted that under Sec. 3 of the Interest Act, the National Commission wrongly set aside order passed by State Commission, which rightly awarded interest to the petitioner-Bank. National Commission held in its judgment that the word "may" is used under Sec. 3 of the Act, which gives discretion to the Court and in a given case if the Commission is satisfied then it may not award interest. I fully agree with the reasoning and view taken by the National Commission. National Commission held in its judgment that the word "may" is used under Sec. 3 of the Act, which gives discretion to the Court and in a given case if the Commission is satisfied then it may not award interest. I fully agree with the reasoning and view taken by the National Commission. There is no reason for me to take a different view of the matter in these petitions. ( 13 ) RELIANCE was placed on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Sovintorg (India) Ltd. v. State Bank of India, New Delhi reported in JT 1999 (6) SC 10. That was a case where there was a delay of 7 years in paying interest. In that case, the State Commission as well as National commission concurrently held that the appellant was deprived of the use of sum of Rs. 1 lakh for over a period of seven years, therefore, the Honble supreme Court raised rate of interest to 15% from 12% interest. As stated earlier, in the instant case, the money of the complainant was lying in current account where no interest is given and delay was few days and not of years. In that view of the matter, the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan v. Raghubir Singh and Ors. , reported in AIR 1979 sc 852 cited by Mr. Vakharia was not seriously pressed into service, which was duly considered by the National Commission in proper perspective. ( 14 ) RELIANCE was also placed on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Vimal Chandra Grover v. Bank of India reported in AIR 2000 SC 2181 . It was totally different case where the question of overdraft was raised. The facts of that were totally different. There the Bank agreed to sell the shares pledged with it, it had a duty to act with reasonable speed. But, facts of the present case are totally different, therefore, in my considered opinion, the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Vimal Chandra Graver (supra) will have no application on facts of this case. ( 15 ) ). Last submission was made by Mr. Vakharia regarding compensation. But, facts of the present case are totally different, therefore, in my considered opinion, the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Vimal Chandra Graver (supra) will have no application on facts of this case. ( 15 ) ). Last submission was made by Mr. Vakharia regarding compensation. The National Commission has also dealt with the same and on facts of this case, it has come to the conclusion that the respondent-Bank was always willing to honour the cheques. Thus, the findings of facts recorded by the National commission in appeals are not required to be disturbed in these writ petitions. ( 16 ) MR. Vakharia then contended that under Sec. 31 of the Negotiable instruments Act, die respondent-Bank was duty bound to make the payment on demand immediately and failing which it will have to pay the interest on the delayed payment. Before appreciating this contention of Mr. Vakharia, I would like to reproduce Sec. 31 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which reads as under :-"31. Liability of drawee of cheque :- The drawee of the cheque having sufficient funds of the drawer in his hands properly applicable to the payment of such cheque must pay the cheque when duly required so to do, and in default of such payment, must compensate the drawer for any loss or damage caused by such default. " ( 17 ) IT is true that under Sec. 31 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the drawee of me cheque having sufficient funds of the drawer in his hands properly applicable to the payment of such cheques must honour the cheques when duly required so to do, and in default of such payment, must compensate me drawer for any loss or damage caused by such default. In ordinary circumstances, if there was any actual loss or damage caused to the petitioner-Bank, then certainly the respondent-Bank was required to pay the compensation. But as stated earlier, national Commission has come to the definite conclusion that the complainatnt- bank failed to prove that it had suffered actual loss, therefore, the submission of Mr. Vakharia cannot be accepeted. In ordinary circumstances, if there was any actual loss or damage caused to the petitioner-Bank, then certainly the respondent-Bank was required to pay the compensation. But as stated earlier, national Commission has come to the definite conclusion that the complainatnt- bank failed to prove that it had suffered actual loss, therefore, the submission of Mr. Vakharia cannot be accepeted. ( 18 ) BEFORE parting, I must state that in the instant case, a contention was raised before the State Commission that under the guidelines issued by the reserved-Bank of Inda (for short "r. B. I. "), the S. B. I, was obliges to keep its cash balance with the R. B. I, after keeping certain cash, which was required for daily working. It is the obligation to keep cash available as and when demand is made as it was holding crores of rupees in the current account, but the s. B. I, failed to discharge its duty. Therefore, it has to pay interest as well as compensation to the applicant-Bank. They failed to dischrage their duty, therefore, they have to pay commission. ( 19 ) IN the instant case, as many as 25 telegrams were sent by respondent State bank of Inida to R. B. I. , but the R. B. I, failed to discharge its obligation by not paying the demanded cash. In speite of this, the State Commission observed that if the R. B. I, failed to discharge its obligation by not paying the demanded cash immediately, then R. B. I, should have claimed damages from R. B. I. , but the default committed by R. B. I, cannot save the S. B. I. With due respect to the state Commission such an approach was wholly unsustainable. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the National Commission has rightly quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the State Commission in appeal. ( 20 ) ). Before parting, I must also state that on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India when the National commission has interfered with the findings of the facts recorded by the State commission filed by the State Bank of India. But, it should not be construed that for no reasons Bank can delay the payment. But, it should not be construed that for no reasons Bank can delay the payment. If they commit such deliberate act, then they have to pay interest and compensation. .