Per K. S. Radhakrishnan. CJ: 1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether a Bank, after purchasing or discounting a DD and crediting the same in the customers account with the amount of the instrument, can dishonour the cheque(s) issued by the customer and reverse the entries of the credit? 2. Punjab National Bank (short `PNB) after having purchased DD, credited the amount in the account of the complainant, honoured few cheques against complainants account and then later stopped payment of various other cheques. Complainant approached the State Commission for deficiency of service. Complaint was allowed by the Commission and reliefs were granted. Aggrieved by the same, PNB has approached this Court with this appeal. Short facts, which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows. 3. Complainant on July 12, 1999, obtained a DD for Rs. 20,95,600/- from Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited (short `J&K Bank) and presented the same to PNB. PNB purchased the above mentioned DD for its value and credited the entire amount of the DD in the account of complainant. On the same day, i.e., on July 12, 1999, complainant issued three cheques for Rs.2.00 lacs; Rs. 1.00 lac and Rs.1.00 lac respectively and those cheques were honoured by PNB at the time of purchase of the DD. Later, three cheques dated July 12, 1999 and July 13, 1999 for Rs.5.00 lacs; Rs.3.00 lacs and Rs.2.50 lacs were also issued by the complainant favouring his creditors but those cheques were dishonoured by PNB with the remark "effects not cleared". It was stated that J&K Bank had declined payment on the ground that the complainant was a defaulter and the Draft was returned unpaid to PNB. On July 14, 1999, PNB again sent the Draft to J&K Bank for collection, but J&K Bank returned the Draft unpaid. Later, PNB through its lawyer sent a legal notice to J&K Bank, stating therein that they had purchased the DD at value; consequently, J&K Bank could not withhold the payment and requested them to accept the DD for collection. 4. Complainant took the stand that since his cheques were dishonoured by PNB, proceedings were initiated against her by creditors and complainant was threatened of criminal prosecution. 4. Complainant took the stand that since his cheques were dishonoured by PNB, proceedings were initiated against her by creditors and complainant was threatened of criminal prosecution. Chief Minister then intervened and it was resolved that complainant would issue a cheque for Rs.6.50 lacs in favour of J&K Bank, but it would not encashed until legal opinion was sought from legal experts at New Delhi whether DD was amenable to Bankers lien. Instructions were also sent in the form of communication dated October 13, 1999 to PNB that it would not encash the cheques for Rs.6.50 lacs in case legal opinion was received against J&K Bank. Complainant alleged that J&K Bank had allowed encashment of the cheque by PNB in utter disregard of above instructions given by complainant in this regard and was deprived of the amount of the cheque. It was further alleged that PNB had charged Rs. 17,504/- as interest on the amount of Rs.4.00 lacs already paid on cheques. Complainant had contested that service hired by her from PNB were defective and, therefore, she demanded Rs. 6.50 lacs; Rs.17,504; Rs.5.00 lacs for loss to credibility, reputation and mental agony and Rs.3.00 lacs for harassment and mental agony. 5. PNB filed written-statement wherein they admitted that they had purchased the Bank Draft and credited the whole amount in the account of complainant on the same day. They also admitted that they released Rs.4.00 lacs in favour of credit holders, but stated that, after purchase of the DD when it was sent for collection to J&K Bank, the same was returned "not honoured". Under such circumstances, PNB had reversed the entries in the saving bank account of complainant, and that they were within their rights since the DD was returned by J&K Bank unpaid. J&K Bank also took up the contention that though demand draft was issued to the complainant certain other amounts were due from him and hence the J&K Bank had retained lien over the money covered by the demand draft. 6. Parties adduced evidence before the Commission. Complainant was also examined and her statement was recorded. PNB and J&K Bank also adduced oral evidence. It is unnecessary to refer to the evidence tendered by the parties before the Commission, since it has already been dealt with by the Commission in detail. 7. 6. Parties adduced evidence before the Commission. Complainant was also examined and her statement was recorded. PNB and J&K Bank also adduced oral evidence. It is unnecessary to refer to the evidence tendered by the parties before the Commission, since it has already been dealt with by the Commission in detail. 7. We are in this case concerned with the legal question whether a Bank after purchasing or discounting a DD and crediting the customers account with the amount of the instrument can dishonour the cheque(s) issued on the strength of the value of the DD and reverse the entries of the credit? 8. The legal question has been well settled by the decision of the Apex Court in Corporation Bank v Navin J. Shah, (2000) 2 SCC 628. Relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder: "When a bank, after purchasing or discounting an instrument from a customer, credits the customer with the amount of the instrument and allows the-customer to draw against the amount as credited before the bill or instrument is cleared, then the bank would be collecting the money not for the customer but chiefly for itself. If the bills and the relevant documents presented by its drawer are accepted by a banker with endorsement in its favour and the same are immediately discounted by the banker without waiting for its collection, by giving full credit for the entire amount of the document, so presented, the banker itself becomes a purchaser and the holder thereof for full value. A banker discounts a bill as opposed to taking it for collection or as security for advances, when he takes it definitely and at once as transferee for value and that it does not matter that the amount of the bill, less discount, is carried to current account as in the case of a customer that is the usual course and where the transaction is really one of discounting, the banker is of course at liberty to deal with the bill as he pleases rediscounting or transferring it." 9. It is clear from the facts of the case that PNB had purchased the DD and, in fact, honoured some of the cheques issued by complainant on the strength of the DD. The DD purchased was credited into the account of complainant. It is clear from the facts of the case that PNB had purchased the DD and, in fact, honoured some of the cheques issued by complainant on the strength of the DD. The DD purchased was credited into the account of complainant. Since PNB accepted and discounted the DD, and honoured cheques against the credited amount, PNB had become its owner. By giving full credit of the entire value of the instrument so presented, PNB had become purchaser of its full value. The above legal position is further supported by a decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dena Bank v. The Madhya Pradesh National Textiles Corporation Ltd., AIR 1982 MP 85. Referring to Halsburys Laws of England, the MP High Court has held as follows: "... It has been stated that a banker discounts a bill as opposed to taking it for collection or as security for advances, when he takes it definitely and at once as transferee for the amount of the bill, less discount, is carried to current account as in the case of a customer that is the usual course. It has been further stated that where the transaction is really one of discounting, the banker is of course at liberty to deal with the bill as he pleases rediscounting or transferring it. ..." 10. The MP High Court reiterated the principle that if a Bank, after purchasing or discounting an instrument from a customer, credits the customer with the amount of the instrument and allows him to draw against the amount as credited before the bill or instrument is cleared, then the bank would not be collecting the money for the customer but chiefly for itself. It was concluded that it was clear that if the bills and the relevant documents presented by its drawer are accepted by a banker with endorsement in its favour and the same are immediately discounted by the banker without waiting for its collection, by giving full credit for the entire amount of the document, so presented, the banker itself becomes a purchaser and the holder thereof for full value. Reference in this connection may also be made to a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Tukaram Bapujui Nikam v The Belgaum Bank, AIR 1976 Bombay 185. 11. Reference in this connection may also be made to a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Tukaram Bapujui Nikam v The Belgaum Bank, AIR 1976 Bombay 185. 11. The law is, therefore, settled that a Bank after purchasing the draft and crediting the same in the account of the customer becomes the holder in due course and does not act as a collecting agent. Sole object of issue of the draft is to transmit the money to another person and a fiduciary relationship is, therefore, created between the Bank which issued it and the purchaser who purchased it. Once it is presented in another Bank and the Bank, after purchasing or discounting in the customers account and allowing the customer to draw against the amount credited, would be doing it for itself. Bank once purchased the draft, and credited it, purchased the title of the document(s) for value. Or else it would not have credited the amount in the account of the customer, but waited for clearance or collection. In the instant case PNB has admittedly purchased the draft and honoured few cheques as well, and hence was a holder in due course. 12. PNB tried to wriggle out of its responsibility by placing reliance on letter dated October 15, 1999 written by complainant to PNB. PNB tried to misinterpret the letter. PNB was asked to proceed in line with what had been stipulated therein. In our view, the letter as such would not absolve PNB from its liability to honour the cheques issued on the strength of the demand draft. As such we cannot absolve PNB of its legal obligation. 13. We are of the considered view that the Commission has rightly applied the legal principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Corporation Bank v Navin J. Shah (supra) to hold that there is deficiency of service. We, therefore, find no good reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commission. Appeal lacks merit. It is dismissed.