P. A. KULKARNI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated March 9, 1984, passed by the VIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City, in S. C. No. 2372 of 1982 dismissing the same. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants alleging that he had issued a crossed cheque "account payee only" bearing No. 110329 for Rs. 2,641 in favour of defendant No. 1. Defendant no. 2 in that suit is the plaintiff's banker. The aforesaid cheque was drawn on defendant No. 2 alone with special instructions to pay it only to the account of the account payee. Defendant No. 1 in whose favour he had drawn the cheque, later on informed him that he had not received the payment under the cheque in question and he had not received the cheque. The plaintiff after enquiry came to know that the cheque which was issued No 3 who endorsed it to the plaintiff's banker, defendant No. 2, Karnataka Bank. The karnataka Bank on account of the endorsement made by defendant No. 3 sent the money to defendant No 3 and debited that amount to the account of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been put to loss. Hence, the suit to recover the money. ( 3 ) THE defendants resisted the suit. ( 4 ) THE trial court dismissed the suit. Hence, the revision. ( 5 ) IT is undisputed that the cheque, exhibit P-1, was drawn by the plaintiff in favour of defendant no. 1 for Rs. 2, 641d on June 15, 1969, and it was a crossed cheque with an endorsement as "account payee only". It is also undisputed that the said cheque was drawn by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 2. It is also undisputed that defendant No. 3, Vysya co-operative Bank, made an endorsement as "payee's account credited" and it sent the cheque to defendant No. 2 for collection. Defendant No. 2, Karnataka Bank, sent the amount to defendant No. 3 on the basis of the said endorsement. ( 6 ) THE trial court appears to have been carried away by the endorsement, exhibit D- (a), made by sri Vishnuvardhana Enterprises bearing some signature below it. That it is the endorsement made by defendant No. 1 has not been proved at all. ( 6 ) THE trial court appears to have been carried away by the endorsement, exhibit D- (a), made by sri Vishnuvardhana Enterprises bearing some signature below it. That it is the endorsement made by defendant No. 1 has not been proved at all. Merely because such an endorsement is found on the reverse of the cheque, it does not mean that defendant G. K. Lakshminarayana Setty and sent the said cheque for collection to defendant No. 2 in whose favour the cheque was drawn. ( 7 ) IT has been clearly stated in the treatise known as Cheques in Law and Practice, third edition, by M. S. Parthasarathy, on page 441, as : "the effect of the addition of the words `account payee', unauthorised by the statute, to a crossing, general or special, has already been discussed. A banker collecting a crossed cheque with the addition of these words for a person other than the payee named in the cheque may be held liable for conversion. Such a cheque was collected by the defendant bank in Bevan v. National Bank Ltd. [1906] 23 tlr 65. There the plaintiff was carrying on business in the name of `malcolm Wade and Co. ' and Wade was the manager. he endorsed a number of cheques received by him but payable to the concern or order. the cheques were paid into his own account with the defendant bank who collected them and credited the proceeds to that account. The cheques had been crossed `account of payees'. It was held that the collection bank was negligent and was not entitled to the protection under section 82 of the B. E. Act inasmuch as it had disregarded the drawer's direction that the cheques should be collected only for the payee's account. " ( 8 ) A further discussion on the same page would confirm the conclusion that if a bank defies the instructions given by the customer, it would be liable for negligence. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, defendant No. 3, Vysya Co-operative Bank, was extremely negligent in making the endorsement, exhibit D-1 (b), reading as "payee's account credited". it may be that G. K. Lakshminarayana Setty has an account with defendant No. 3. But the cheque was drawn in favour of defendant No. 1, Sr. Vishnuvardhana Enterprises. Admittedly, defendant No. 1, vishnuvardhana Enterprises, had or has no account with defendant No. 3. it may be that G. K. Lakshminarayana Setty has an account with defendant No. 3. But the cheque was drawn in favour of defendant No. 1, Sr. Vishnuvardhana Enterprises. Admittedly, defendant No. 1, vishnuvardhana Enterprises, had or has no account with defendant No. 3. Therefore, it is defendant No. 3, Vysya Co-operative Bank, that is guilty of negligence. Therefore, defendant no. 3 Vysya Co-operative Bank, alone is guilty of negligence and it is liable to pay damages to the plaintiff. The Karnataka Bank cannot be held responsible. ( 10 ) IN Sheldon 's Practice and Law of Banking, tenth edition, on page 42, it has been stated as : "with regard to the paying banker it is obvious that, after fulfilling his duty of paying the cheque in good faith and without negligence, his responsibility ceases, and he cannot be expected to follow the money after it has reached the collecting banker, and insist upon the collecting banker paying it into the proper account. But the collecting banker is in a different position. " ( 11 ) THIS view in the said book has gained strength from section 128 of the Negotiable instruments Act and also from a ruling in Canara Bank Ltd. v. Govind Ram Rajinder Kumar [1981] 51 Comp Cas 476 (Delhi ). Therefore, defendant No. 2 Karnataka Bank, is not liable. ( 12 ) IT was next argued by learned counsel, Shri Rangaraju, that the plaintiff has not proved that he had sustained the loss. The very fact that this amount has been debited to the account of the plaintiff shows that the plaintiff has been put to loss to that extent. Therefore, the said argument is rejected. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel, Shri Ranagraju, then submitted that notice under section 125 of the co-operative Societies Act had not been given and thus the suit against him was not maintainable. it does not relate to the constitution, amendment or business of the society. Therefore, no notice is necessary. ( 14 ) THEREFORE, under these circumstances, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dismissing the suit in toto are set aside. The revision is allowed. So far as defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the decree passed by the court below dismissing the suit against them is confirmed. Therefore, no notice is necessary. ( 14 ) THEREFORE, under these circumstances, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dismissing the suit in toto are set aside. The revision is allowed. So far as defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the decree passed by the court below dismissing the suit against them is confirmed. Defendant No. 3 Vysya Co-operative Industrial Co- operative Bank Ltd. , Cantonment branch, Bangalore 1, represented by its manager, is alone liable. However, for the purpose of clarification, it is ordered that the plaintiff do recover Rs. 4,066 with future interest on Rs. 2,641 at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from the date of suit till its recovery from defendant No. 3. ( 15 ) NO order as to costs in this revision. Defendant No. 3 should pay the costs of the plaintiff in the trial court and should bear his own in the trial court.