S.R. PARAMJOTHY Vs. KUNJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the price of cement due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff, the former on 6th March 1973 issued in favour of the latter Ext. A -1 cheque for Rs. 750 drawn on the Syndicate Bank, Sreekariyam. The Plaintiff discounted the same with the South Indian Bank Ltd., Trivandrum. On presentment by the second mentioned bank, the Syndicate Bank as per Ext. A -2 Memo dated 12th March 1973 returned the same for the reason: 'Full cover not received'. The South Indian Bank Ltd. in turn returned Ext. A -1 cheque together with Ext. A -2 Memo, to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff issued Ext. B -2 notice, dated 9th February 1974 informing the Defendant of the dishonour of the cheque, and demanding payment of the sum of Rs. 750, interest thereon from 12th March 1973 and the cost of notice. The Defendant did not pay the amount and the Plaintiff therefore, on 4th November 1974 instituted the suit for realization of the said amounts. The lower court dismissed the suit on the ground that notice of dishonour was not sent within a reasonable time. The lower court also held that no relief could be granted on the Original Cause of action for the price of cement supplied either, as the notice of dishonour was not sent within a reasonable time. The Plaintiff has come up in revision.

(2.) EXT . B -1 duplicate of Defendant's pass book in respect of S.B. Account No. 945 against which Ext. A -1 cheque was drawn shows that during the period 6th March 1973 to 12th March 1973 the credit balance in his favour in that account was only Rs. 13.65. This means that the drawer of the cheque had no sufficient effect in the hands of the drawee bank, sufficient to cover Ext. A -1 cheque.

(3.) THAT the drawer of a cheque is liable to the holder as a principal debtor is also clear from Section 30 of the Act where under the drawer is liable to compensate the holder in case the cheque is dishonoured by the drawee. Section 93 of the Act employs the expression 'parties' and 'some one of several parties' whom the holder seeks to make liable on the cheque, so that the drawer also is a person entitled to notice of dishonour thereunder; and Section 30, specifically says that the liability of the drawer to compensate the holder is dependant upon due notice of dishonour in the manner provided for in the Act. Therefore, Section 98(c) of the Act, governs such cases also. Here again the question is could he suffer any damage on account of want of notice.