M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.2. The complainant/appellant leveling negligence as well as deficiency against the opposite party bank, has filed the case for the total recovery of a sum of Rs.10 lakhs, under three headings.3. The opposite party bank opposed the claim, contending that the complainant was not a consumer, though had an account, having closed the same, issued cheque, not returning the unused cheque, in order to cheat and commit fraud and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed with costs, denying the entire averments.4. The District Forum considering the admitted facts, as well as proved facts, came to the conclusion, that this is the most vexatious frivolous case where there was no consumer dispute and in this view, the complaint was dismissed as per the order dated 29.12.2008, with cost of Rs.10,000/- for filing vexatious complaint, which is sought to be nullified, seeking the relief once again, before us by preferring appeal.5. The complaint is eloquently silent, not only regarding the closure of the account, namely how it had happened as well as to whom the cheque was issued, why it was issued, after the closure of the account, whoever may be the cause for the closure of the account, thereby showing the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that too, not being a consumer, which was correctly noted, of by the District Forum, imposing costs and we feel, we should follow the same, while dismissing the appeal also.6. The complainant had cash credit facilities with the opposite party, having account No.0046-D61153-020 from 8.8.2006. This account was closed on 16.2.2006, as pleaded in Para 4 of the complaint, which is admitted one and the account came to be closed at the insistence of the complainant alone as per the letter dated 16.2.2006 [Ex.B5]. Thus, it is made crystal clear, the complainant had the knowledge, about the closure of his above said account with effect from 16.2.2006. Therefore, in the ordinary course, he ought to have returned the unused cheques if any given by the bank after the closure of the account or atleast he should not have misused the cheques retained by him.7. In this case, we are not very much concerned the reason for closing the account and it is sufficient to note, that the account was closed on 16.2.2006. Therefore, thereafter the complainant is not an account holder of the opposite party Bank and in this view, the complainant cannot be a customer of the bank and the bank is not expected to serve the ex-account holder also whose account was closed on 16.2.2006. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for respondent/opposite party, there was no relationship of customer and the banker after 16.2.2006, and in this view, the complainant cannot be a consumer also, thereafter, though the bank had committed some mistake inadvertently or fell in the trap of a cheating man, a fraudulent person, namely the complainant, which is well established by records and our observation is purely based upon the documents.8. In Para 4 of the complaint, it is said "When the cheque bearing No.010209, dated 29.12.2006 was presented with the opposite party who had endorsed as Account Closed" would indicate that the complainant had admitted the closure of the account, which is proved by Ex.B5 also. Upto that point, the bank had did their job properly. It is not known from the complaint, in whose favour the cheque was issued and who had presented the cheque etc., When the complainant knew that his account was closed, he had issued a cheque dated 29.12.2006, which itself should be construed, as a fraudulent act, intended to cheat the bank. Atleast after the return of the cheque, as account closed, which cheque is not produced before us for perusal, the complainant, should have advised the person concerned not to represent the cheque, whereas it seems, the cheque was represented on 15.2.2007, and unfortunately the Bank returned the said cheque, with an endorsement "Insufficient Fund", giving cause of action to file a frivolous and vexatious case. When the re-presentation was made or when the cheque was presented as said above, the complainant had no account and he is not a customer or a consumer. Therefore, the return of the cheque, for insufficient fund, which is patently incorrect also, cannot be taken as deficiency in service or negligence act, as far as the complainant is concerned. The complainant, instead of stopping further activities, issued notice, which was properly replied, by the opposite party, not only that, they have also requested to return the unused cheques. Thus, for the fraudulent act committed by the complainant, issuing a cheque for Rs.9 lakhs, in a closed account, then representing the same cheque, should attract the Indian Penal Code, but unfortunately, the Bank had not initiated a criminal proceedings and taking it as fortunate the complainant taking the benevolent provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, claimed a false and vexatious claim of Rs.10 lakhs, since he is not required to pay the Court fee, which should be condemned, visiting heavy costs, even exceeding the costs contemplated under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act. Because of the restriction, we would like to impose maximum costs, for vexatious appeal.9. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the cheque was returned at the second time "Insufficient funds" should be construed as negligent act or deficiency in service is unacceptable to us, since by the mistake committed by the Bank, the cheating or fraudulent act committed by the complainant cannot be justified, bringing him as a consumer or bringing him as he is an account holder. On the date of issue of cheque, on the date of presentation of cheque and as well as the representation of the cheque, since the complainant is not an account holder and not a consumer, abusing the process of Consumer Act provision, a vexatious complaint was filed, which was rightly dismissed, which, deserves the same fate, before us also. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merit being most vexatious, should be dismissed with exemplary costs.10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-, confirming the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai [North], in C.C.285/2007, dated 29.12.2008.;