Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

HONBLE JUSTICE MR. A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT   The present consumer complaint was filed by the complainant stating interalia that the complainant is the sole proprietor of M/s Shaon Classics (Mfg.) company and in course of his business one M/s. Allied Minerals & Industries Pvt. Ld. issued an A/c Payee cheque bearing No.145618 dated 30.7.05 drawn on State Bank of India, Katni Main Branch for a sum of Rs.10 lacs as part payment. On 28.9.05 the complainant deposited the said cheque with his banker, Bank of India, Free School Street Branch, Kolkata where the complainant maintains a Current A/c. bearing No.O/D 45414. OP1 Bank of India sent the said cheque to the Katni Main Branch of State Bank of India being the OP5 for clearing and, thereafter, OP1 received instructions from OP5 that the said cheque was outdated and the OP1 returned the cheque along with their letter dated 18.10.05 to the complainant.

Considering the aforesaid we find that the document show clearly that the OPs1 & 2 proceeded on the basis that the cheque was dated 30.7.05. Therefore, the alteration/interpolation could not have been done to the cheque while it was in the custody of OP1 &

2. Letter dated 23.11.2005 show clearly that the cheque was described as dated 30.7.05.

In case the interpolation had been made during its custody with OP1 & 2, such description of the cheque would not have been there. The allegation of collusion between the complainant and the drawer of the cheque, also is not acceptable as none of them could have an access to the disputed cheque during its custody either with the OP1 & 2 or with the OP5. In such circumstances there is no other alternative but to conclude that alteration/interpolation occurred while the cheque was in custody of OP5. As the drawer of the cheque was account holder with OP5, the said possibility becomes more apparent. The evidence recorded in the proceeding also show that OP1 & 2 dealt with the cheque when it was dated 30.7.05 and the OP5 refused to honour the cheque as it was outdated which means the alteration of the date to 30.7.04 was made at that stage.

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 & 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 & 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 alteration/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 envelop containing the cheque received for OP1 & 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.