Alteration in the date of a cheque is not a material alteration unless it affects the liabilities of the parties legally.

Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President—This appeal is by the complainant Smt. Parvinder Kaur and others, legal heirs of Harpal Singh challenging order of the District Forum, Ropar dated 9.2.1996 dismissing their complaint.

2. Harpal Singh was maintaining a Bank account with Union Bank of India — the opposite party. He also had dealings with opposite party No. 2 P.P.S. Rishi. He had issued a cheque for Rs. 25,000- in favour of Rishi on 14.4.1990. Subsequently, he paid the amount in cash to Rishi but did not collect the cheque. On 25.1.1991, he issued another cheque for Rs. 90,000/- which the Bank dishonoured for want of sufficient funds on 25.1.1991. It was on 25.1.1991 that Harpal Singh was murdered. His legal heirs Smt. Parminder Kaur widow, Jasveen Kaur and Simerleen Kaur minor daughters and Manjit Kaur mother filed the complaint before the District Forum, Ropar against the Bank and Rishi inter-alia alleging deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Bank in making payment of the cheque of Rs. 25,000/- to Rishi illegally as date of issue of the cheque had been altered rendering the cheque as invalid. In consequence, there was again deficiency in dishonouring the cheque issued by Harpal Singh for Rs. 90,000/- Thus in the complaint claim was made to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- as the remaining amount lying in credit to Harpal Singh was paid to the legal heirs on their obtaining a succession certificate. Rishi was proceeded ex-parte and did not file any reply whereas on behalf of the Bank reply was filed denying the allegations made in the complaint. It was asserted that the cheque for Rs. 25,000/- was dated 14.9.1990 and its payment was rightly made. There was no deficiency on their part. Since sufficient amount was not lying in credit, subsequent cheque issued could not be honoured. It was admitted that the amount lying in credit was paid to Smt. Parvinder Kaur on production of succession certificate issued by the Civil Court. On behalf of the complainant Parvinder Kaur made the statement as AW 1 and PW 2 J.P. Goel, Manager of Union Bank of India was also recorded. Affidavit of the complainant Ex. R 2 was also produced. On behalf of the Bank affidavit of J.P. Goel, Manager of the Bank Mohali Branch was produced. The disputed cheque for Rs. 25,000/- in original was produced by the Bank alongwith statement of account Ex. Rl. The District Forum after considering the evidence produced held that the complainant could be treated as a consumer and entitled to file the complaint. However, they were relegated to remedy in the Civil Court after observing that apparently there appeared to be alteration in the date of the cheque for Rs. 25,000/- but no expert evidence was produced. The allegations of fraud having been committed by Rishi could be decided by leading voluminous evidence.

3. Arguments of Counsel for the parties were heard at great length on 30.7.1996 and Counsel for the appellant was directed to file written arguments, the same have been filed and perused.

4. Mr. A.S. Bakshi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant-appellant has argued that since on looking at the cheque, there can be no two opinions that date of the cheque was altered from 14.4.1990 to 14.9.1990, the Bank should not have made payment of the cheque without getting confirmation in writing from the drawee. While referring to Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, he has argued that for determining the issue as to whether there is alteration in the document or not expert evidence is not required and the Court can look at the document itself. The aforesaid arguments have not appealed to us. The question for consideration is as to whether the Bank was justified in making payment of the disputed cheques to Rishi. As per affidavit of J.P. Goel, Manager of the Bank, the cheque was presented on 22.1.1991 and the amount was withdrawn and deposited in the credit of the account of Rishi on 23.1.1991. Thus it is obvious that payment under the cheque was not mad