Judgment : BELLIE, J. ( 1 ) THE second defendant Union Bank of India, is the appellant. In the suit O. S. No. 8580 of 1976 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,455/-with interest at 12% per annum a decree has been passed for a sum of Rs. 9. 000/-with interest at 12% per annum against defendants 2 and 3. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff Salem Central Co-operative Bank Limited has filed the suit alleging as follows : The Shevapat Urban Co-operative Bank is having an account with the plaintiff Bank at its Shevapet branch and also with the first defendant tamil Nadu State Cooperative Urban Bank. On 22. 1. 1974 the Shevapet Co-operative urban Bank requested the plaintiffs Shevapet branch to transfer a sum of rs. 9,000/- from its account thereto its account with the first defendant. For this a cheque was drawn by the plaintiffs Shevapet branch on 22. 1. 1974 for a sum of rs. 9,000/- on the defendant Bank requesting it to credit the amount to the credit of the Shevapet Urban Co-operative Bank. The cheque was sent by post. While in transit it has been intercepted and after tampering with it by altering the payees name into S. Jayaraj third defendant, the same has been presented to the second defendant Bank for collection and crediting the amount in the account of the third defendant. The third defendant subsequently withdrew the amount which had been credited in his name. The first defendant Bank had debited a sum of Rs. 9,000/-in the account of the plaintiff Bank. It is the case of the plaintiff that the second defendant Bank without taking proper care regarding the bona fides of the cheque, received it forwarded the cheque to the first defendant and the first defendant Bank was also grossly negligent in passing the cheque for payment. The alteration in the cheque is very apparent and could have been easily detected, and if the bank concerned had been diligent the third defendant would not have been paid the amount. The first defendant bank had made enquiries only belatedly and found the fraud. The second defendant Bank also had been negligent in opening an account in the name of the third defendant without proper introduction and on account of this the plaintiff has been caused a loss of Rs. 9,000/ -. The first defendant bank had made enquiries only belatedly and found the fraud. The second defendant Bank also had been negligent in opening an account in the name of the third defendant without proper introduction and on account of this the plaintiff has been caused a loss of Rs. 9,000/ -. The three defendants are liable to make good the said loss to the plaintiff. Therefore the suit has been filed for collection of the said sum of Rs. 9,000/- with interest thereon at 12% per annum totalling to Rs. 13,455/ . ( 3 ) THE third defendant remained ex parte. The first defendant Bank denied that there was negligence on its part in passing the cheque and it denied its liability. ( 4 ) THE second defendant also denied that it was negligent in opening the account for third defendant and receiving the cheque and sending it to the first defendant for collection and payment of the amount to the third defendant. It contended that it acted with due diligence as a collecting Bank. If further contended that there was absolutely no cause for suspecting the authenticity of the cheque. ( 5 ) THE trial Court on consideration of the evidence held that there was no negligence on the part of the first defendant in its passing the cheque, but it held that the second defendant was negligent in opening the account for the third defendant and also in collecting the amount from the first defendant. In the result the trial court dismissed the suit as against the first defendant but decreed it as against defendants 2 and 3. Against this the second defendant has filed this appeal. ( 6 ) THE point that arises for consideration in the appeal is whether the second defendant Bank was negligent in receiving the cheque and collecting the amount. ( 7 ) THE trial Court on a careful scrutiny of the evidence found that undoubtedly the second defendant Bank was negligent in opening an account for the third defendant. During the arguments in the appeal this finding has not been seriously disputed. The account of the third defendant had been opened with just Rs. 60/-on 16. 1. 1974. Within 3 days a sum of Rs. 10/- has been withdrawn and hence there was left a balance of Rs. 50/- only. During the arguments in the appeal this finding has not been seriously disputed. The account of the third defendant had been opened with just Rs. 60/-on 16. 1. 1974. Within 3 days a sum of Rs. 10/- has been withdrawn and hence there was left a balance of Rs. 50/- only. There is nothing to doubt that the said jayaraj-third defendant was man of poor financial position. He is said to have been introduced to the bank by one Rajan who had a Savings Bank Account in the Triplicane branch of the second defendant Bank. It is the definite case of the plaintiff that the second defendant Bank had been negligent in opening an account for Jayaraj-third defendant. In spite of it the said rajan (Introducer) has not been examined by the second defendant, and it is not its case that Rajan is an unknown person or his whereabouts are not known, and no other reason whatsoever has been given as to why he has not been examined. This raises a serious doubt as to whether any S. Rajan has really introduced Jayaraj to the second defendant Bank. It is therefore manifest that the trial Court has rightly held that there was negligence on the part of the second defendant Bank in opening an account for Jayaraj. The suit cheque Ex. B-1 has been issued on 22. 1. 1974 and it has been presented to the second defendant Bank on 28. 1. 1974. At that time there was only a meagre sum of Rs. 50/- in the account of Jayaraj. The cheque amount of Rs. 9,000/- at that time i. e. in 1974 should have been fairly a large amount. Considering the fact that jayaraj has opened an account with just Rs. 60/- and even out of it he had withdrawn Rs. 10/- leaving a balance of Rs. 50/- only, in the normal course, there would have arisen some suspicion in the second defendant Bank. A careful look at Ex. B-1 cheque would show, as contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, that first the had been written in pencil and then upon it by pen. Even a mere look of the letter l in the word only will clearly show the writing by pencil. A careful look at Ex. B-1 cheque would show, as contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, that first the had been written in pencil and then upon it by pen. Even a mere look of the letter l in the word only will clearly show the writing by pencil. Therefore, in my view if the second defendant Bank had been diligent enough they would not have sent the cheque for collection without further checking. Hence it cannot be stated that the second defendant was not negligent in receiving the cheque and sending it for encashment. The trial Court also relying on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Indian bank v. The Catholic Syrain Bank Limited, 93 LW 647, the facts in which are quite similar to the facts of the present case, has held that the second defendant Bank had been negligent in opening an account of the third defendant and sending the cheque for collection. I find no reason to interfere with this finding of the trial Court. However Mr. K. Krishnaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant second defendant relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Canara Bank v. Vijaya Bank, 1992 (1) MLJ 636 , contends that even if there is negligence in opening of an account it must also be proved that there was negligence in encashing the cheque and there must be sufficient connection between the opening of the account and collection of the amount and there is no plea in this regard in the plaint as required by the said decision. But there is such a plea in the plaint in paragraph 8 which reads : "the second defendant Bank had also been negligent in opening an account of the third defendant without proper introduction and in having collected and disbursed cheques for larger amounts immediately thereafter including the cheque in question. " the learned Counsel next relying on a Supreme Court decision in Indian Overseas bank v. Industrial Chain Concern, 1990 (1) SCC 484 : [vol. " the learned Counsel next relying on a Supreme Court decision in Indian Overseas bank v. Industrial Chain Concern, 1990 (1) SCC 484 : [vol. 1 DCTC 38], submits that even if there was negligence in opening an account, unless negligence is proved in collecting the amount, the second defendant would be entitled to protection under Section 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act according to which a banker, who has in good faith and without negligence, received payment for a customer of a cheque crossed generally or specially to himself shall not, in case the title to the cheque proves defective, incur any liability to the true owner of the cheque by reason only of having received such payment. But I have found above on the facts of the case, that it cannot be stated that the second defendant was not negligence in receiving the cheque and sending it for encashment. It may be noted that in the said Supreme Court decision it is observed that the Banks negligence in not making inquiries as to the customer, upon opening an account, if there was any, could shed light in its negligence in collecting the cheques for him. The Supreme Court has also stated that the question of negligence or no negligence depends entirely on the facts of each individual case. ( 8 ) IT is next contended by the learned Counsel that the suit is premature because the plaintiff has not incurred any liability by encashment of the cheque in question, i. e. Ex. B-1. This argument was advanced before the trial Court and rightly it has rejected it. As pointed out by the trial Court the cheque, Ex. B-l having been drawn by the plaintiff on the first defendant Bank the amount contained therein would have been debited against the plaintiff in the account of the first defendant Bank. Further, as pointed out by the trial Court the Shevapet Urban Co-operative Bank has taken arbitration proceedings against the plaintiff Bank for the amount covered under the cheque and an award has been passed against the plaintiff for the amount with interest at 12% per annum and that has been confirmed in the appeal. Thus there is no substance in this submission of the learned Counsel. ( 9 ) THUS I find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly it is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.