JOYDMB DAS Vs. NATIONAL BANK OF INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff who has a Current Deposit Account with tins defendant, has instituted this suit fox the recovery of Rs. 6,000/-; interests and costs. On the 9th July 1947 it is alleged the plaintiff went to the defendant Bank for the purpose of ascertaining the amount lying to his credit in his Current Account and on enquiry he found that he had been debited with the sum of Rs. 6,100/- under date 13th May, 1947. On that date the plaintiff drew a cheque No. A761058 for Rs. 100/- and not for Rs. 6,100/- for which he was debited. The amount of the cheque was fraudulently altered to Rs. 6,100/ - and if the defendant Bank had exercised due care and caution it could have detected the forgery. The defendant Bank is wrongfully refusing to make good the loss caused to the plaintiff inspite of demands.

(2.) THE defence is that the plaintiff's Account was debited on the 13th May, 1947 with the sum of Rs. 6,100/- in respect of the cheque drawn by the plaintiff in favour of one P. K. Mitra and the plaintiff was informed about the same when he visited the defendant Bank on the 9th July. 1947. The plaintiff again visited the defendant bank on the 10th July, 1947 when pursuant to his request the defendant handed over the cheque to him on his signing a receipt for the same. The defendant denies that on the 13th May, 1947 the plaintiff drew a cheque for rs. 100/- and not Rs. 6,100/ -. The defendant does not -admit that the cheque was fraudulently altered to Rs. 6,100/- as alleged by the plaintiff, or that if the defendant had exercised due care or caution, it could have detected the forgery or fraudulent alteration or that there was any failure on the part of the defendant to exercise due care or caution. The defendant does not admit that the appearance of the cheque should have put the Bank on suspicision or enquiry or that instead of making payment forthwith the Bank should have referred the matter to the drawer as alleged in the plaintiff's solicitor's letter dated 4th February, 1948 furnishing particulars of paragraph 5 of the plaint (Vide Exhibit '5' and Exhibit 'e' ). The cheque when presented for payment did not appear to have been materially altered. The defendant paid the cheque according to the apparent tenor thereof at the time of payment and otherwise in due course in good faith and without negligence. In the premises, it is not open to the plaintiff to question the payment of the cheque. The plaintiff in drawing the cheque failed and neglected to take usual or reasonable precaution and the manner in which the cheque was drawn by the plaintiff was calculated to facilitate material alteration or forgery in respect of the cheque. The plaintiff, in the circumstances, is stopped from questioning the debiting of the amount of the cheque against his account. The defendant denies that it caused loss to the plaintiff or it is acting wrongfully in refusing to make good the alleged loss. The defendant denies that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 6,000/ -.

(3.) THE following issues were raised :-1. Did the plaintiff draw the cheque for Rs. 6,100/-? 2. Was there any fraudulent alteration of the amount of the cheque ? 3. Is the plaintiff stopped from questioning the payment of the cheque for Rs. 6,100/- by reason of the plaintiff's negligence in drawing the cheque?