R.N. Mittal, President - The appeals namely A-203 and A-224 of 1992 have been filed against the order of the District Forum No, 2, one by the complainant and the other by the opposite party. The appeal filed by the complainant has been numbered as A-203/92 and that filed by the, O.P. as A-224192. Both the appeals shall be disposed of by this order.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the complainant was enrolled by the opposite party as a member of Chit Fund Scheme of Group J.H. 3 on 5th April, 1988. He paid an amount of Rs.29,000)/- in installments of Rs.1,000/- each. The scheme was to mature after 30 months. On maturity of the scheme he was entitled to Rs.27,500/-, after deduction of one installment i.e. Rs.1,000/- and commission of Rs.1500/-.

3. It is further pleaded that the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 assured the complainant that they would be responsible for repayment of the amount, in case O.P. No.1 did not do so. The amount, however, has not been paid by them. Therefore, he has claimed an amount of Rs.27,500/-, the amount of chit and Rs.8,662.50 on account of interest from 1.2.1990 to 30.9.1991 and Rs.500/- as expenses of legal notice.The complaint has been contested by the O.Ps. O.P. No.1 admitted the receipt of Rs.29,000/- from the complainant but they disputed their liability to repay on the ground that the complainant had stood surety for Sukhdev Singh, who was a .subscriber of 2 chits, one for Rs.1,20,000/- and the other for Rs.45,000/-. It is alleged that Sukhdev Singh owed Rs.82,000/- to the company and after adjusting the amount due to the complainant, towards that amount, the O.Ps. were still entitled to get Rs.55,500/- from the complainant.

4. The District Forum held, that the pronote and receipt of Rs.45,000/- dated 25th July, 1985 had been interpolated and another amount of Rs.1,20,000/- had been added therein and therefore, the documents had become void. After making the said observation it directed the O.P. to pay Rs.27,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest@ 18% p.a. from 1.2.1990 till the date of payment. Both the parties have come up in appeal against the said order to the Commission.

5. 1st we shall deal with appeal No. A-224/92, filed by M/s. Join Hands Chit Fund, P. Ltd. & Others(O.P.) The only question that arises for determination is, that if a material alteration is made in a negotiable instrument without the consent of the pro1y executing the same, whether it becomes void.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Section 87 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 provides that any material alteration of a negotiable instrument renders, the same void as against anyone who is a party thereto at the time of making such alteration and does not consent thereto, unless it was made in order to carry out the common intention of the original parties. No evidence much less reliable one has been placed by the appellant on the record that the complainant had agreed that interpolations could be made on the promissory note and the receipt by adding an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- therein. The interpolations had been made without the consent of the complainant.

7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the promissory note and receipt became void on account of interpolations made by the O.P. therein. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the appeal of the opposite party.

8. New we advert to appeal No. A-203/92 filed by the complainant. In that appeal he claims expenses of the notice served on the O.Ps. which were disallowed by the District Forum. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we do not find sufficient reasons to grant the said relief. An amount of Rs,1,000/- has been granted to the complainant on account of costs of the complaint which include tile expenses of notice. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal as well.

For the aforesaid reasons we dismiss both the appeals with no order as to costs.

Appeals dismissed.