Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.       Bank of India filed written version admitting that a cheque of ₹10,00,000/- was deposited by the Complainant in his account No. 0/D 45414 on 20.09.2005. After receiving the said cheque the same was sent to Katni Branch of SBI for clearing.  It was pleaded that the cheque was returned unpaid by SBI through its written memo. with the remarks "instrument outdated".  Upon the receipt of the said cheque the same was forwarded to the Complainant with the return memo.  It was pleaded that the cheque was forwarded by following the normal banking practices and that they are not responsible for any interpolation as  their duty was only to collect the proceeds of the cheque after realization from SBI. The Complainant had unnecessarily impleaded them as a party to the case as the interpolation was done in the Katni Branch of SBI.  Bank of India has nothing to do with the non-payment of the said cheque and no deficiency can be attributed against them.

5.       SBI filed their written version to the effect that one account-payee cheque bearing No. 145618 dated 30.07.2005 drawn on SBI, Katni Main Branch, for an amount of ₹10,00,000/- issued by one M/s Allied Minerals & Industries was received in their Branch for payment through Bank of India, which was returned as the cheque was "outdated".  It was specifically denied that there was interpolation in the date made by them and it was stated that the cheque in question was received in their Branch after the date was interpolated from '5' to '4'.  They deny that there was any interpolation done by them in collusion with Bank of India.  It was pleaded that  SBI cannot be held responsible for any inconvenience or loss alleged to have been suffered by the Complainant as allegations are not substantiated by any reliable document or evidence and therefore, no deficiency in service can be attributed to them. 

6.       The State Commission allowed the complaint for cheque amount by observing as follows:-

"In the written objection filed by the OPs 3, 4 & 5 it has been stated in paragraph 5 thereof that the said cheque contained overwriting which was 'strolled through' and as such the correctness of the content of the alleged cheque is not admitted. Again in paragraph 7 of the said written objection the  OPs 3, 4 and 5 stated that they received the alleged cheque in an interpolated condition. But, surprisingly, the OPs did not return the cheque on the ground of interpolation but treating the said cheque as dated 30.7.2004 returned the same as 'outdated cheque'.  It may be noticed that the said OPs 3, 4 & 5 even did not admit the correctness of the content of the cheque as it contained overwriting but accepting the overwriting as a valid alteration returned the cheque as outdated.  Therefore, the case made out by the OPs 3, 4 and 5 is self-contradictory whereas the contentions of the OPs 1 & 2 are consistent and it has been categorically stated by OP1 & 2 that the said cheque was dated 30.7.2005 and was sent for clearing to OP5.  The OPs 1 & 2 by their letter dated 23.11.2005 categorically described the cheque as dated 30.7.05.  In above view of the findings it appears that OP1 & 2 received the cheque as clearly dated 30.7.2005 and sent it to the OP5 also in the same condition. But OP5 returned the cheque as outdated which shows that it acted on the altered date 30.7.2004 treating the alteration as a proper correction.  But in course of the proceeding the said OPs have stated that the said cheque was interpolated and even did not admit the correctness of the cheque due to such interpolation.  But it is also noticed that the cheque was not returned on the ground of interpolation but on the ground of it being outdated.  Therefore, it is apparent that the OP5 has tried to make out two inconsistent cases of interpolation as also the cheque being outdated.  Therefore, there is no reason to accept self-contradictory cases made by the OP5 and as there is no other party involved which had dealt with the cheque keeping in its custody the only conclusion can be reached that said alternation/interpolation has been done on the said cheque while it was in the custody of the OP5.  As it is not the case of the OP5 that the envelope containing the cheque received for OP1 and 2 was tampered or damaged, the alteration was not possible while the cheque was in transit. Therefore, the said OPs are held responsible and are, therefore, liable to compensate the complainant and also to make payment of the amount covered by the said cheque".                                                         

10.     In compliance with the said directions, the true certified copy of the relevant portion of the Register containing the entry of forwarding the said cheque was duly produced by Bank of India.  It is pertinent to note that despite ample opportunities and a specific direction given by this Commission to produce the cheque referral register the same was never produced by SBI.  On a specific question it was stated by their Counsel that the relevant record was not available.  There was also a direction on 26.08.2016 that if the Bank failed to file the documents, as directed vide order dated 22.04.2016, the Appeal may be dismissed for non-prosecution. Despite this direction, no documents have been filed.  Keeping in view the submissions of Bank of India and also certified copy of the extract containing the entry of forwarding the said cheque to SBI, it is proved beyond doubt that Bank of India forwarded the cheque dated 30.07.2005  to SBI, which was returned to them as "outdated".  This establishes that SBI had received the cheque dated 30.07.2005 and the interpolation was done at their end and it is pertinent to note that the cheque was returned on the ground of it being 'outdated' and not 'interpolated'.  I do not see any illegality in the finding of the State Commission that the said alteration/interpolation on the said cheque was done while it was in the custody of SBI.  The State Commission also observed that there was no pleading on the part of SBI that the envelope containing the cheque received from Bank of India, was either tampered or damaged for any sort of alteration to have been possible while the cheque was in transit.