TAMILNAD MERCANTILE BANK LTD Vs. S NAGARATHINAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant's case is as follows: The 5th opposite party, for the purpose of his business, had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant and issued a cheque drawn in favour of the 1st opposite party for the said sum of Rs.50,000/- on 23.9.1996. As requested by the 5th opposite party, the complainant, after waiting for some time, presented the cheque on 29.1.1997. The 6th opposite party sent the cheque for collection, but the cheque was returned by the 1st opposite party to the 5th opposite party on the ground that there was alteration in it. The opposite parties 1 to 4 and 6 have colluded with the 5th opposite party. There was no alteration in the cheque when it was presented for collection to the 1st opposite party. If the date had been altered, it would not have been received for collection. The return of the cheque is improper and unfair. The 1st opposite party and the opposite parties 2 to 5 belong to Nadar Community. The return of the cheque has caused mental agony, hardship and loss of income to the complainant. Hence the complaint.

(2.) The opposite parties 1 to 4 contended that the 6th opposite party returned the cheque as there was material alteration. Giving a communal colour to the return of the cheque is mischievous. It is unfair to allege that the opposite parties 1 to 4 have colluded with the 5th opposite party. The current account No.355672 was closed on 25.8.1992. The said account stood in the name of one M/s. Jothi Traders, a partnership firm, constituted by one P. Nagajothi and one R. Viswanathan. The 5th opposite party is not the account holder. The return of the cheque is not a deficiency in service. The complainant is not a consumer.

(3.) The 6th opposite party contended that the complainant has an account with the 6th opposite party and a cheque dated 23.9.1996 for Rs.50,000/- bearing No.106062 was presented for collection. The cheque was returned for the reason that in the date of the cheque there was an alteration. The 6th opposite party is not aware of the other allegations. The 6th opposite party is not a necessary party as no relief is asked for against them.