BRANCH MANAGER, STATE OF BANK OF INDIA vs NAKUL CHANDRA BHARALI

A withdrawal slip with a forged signature amounting to Rs. 12,000/- was presented to the State Bank of India, Jorhat Branch and on that withdrawal slip the payment was made. Later on it transpired that the signature on the withdrawal slip was a forged one and that also was established by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Kahilipara, Guwahati. Thereafter, this Complaint Case was filed being C.P.A. Case No. 37/1992 before the District Forum, Jorhat and the District Forum at Jorhat directed the Bank Authority to pay Rs. 12,000/-, the amount of the withdrawal form to the claimant with interest @ 12% and further granted compensation of Rs. 5,000/- with a further direction that the entire amount i.e., the amount of the cheque and this amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 15% after one month from the date of receipt of the order till realisation. Hence, this appeal.

WE have heard Mr. S.S. Sarma, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. N.C. Das, learned Advocate for the respondents. Mr. Sarma submits that the District Forum has made some uncharitable remarks as against the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India and these remarks may be expunged and the direction given for enquiry shall also be expunged and /or deleted. Mr. Sarma further submits that the Bank has already paid the amount of Rs. 12,000/-with interest @ 6% though the interest S.B. Account is 5% and awarding of compensation and the interest fixed at 12% and 15% is beyond the jurisdiction of the District Forum. In this connection Mr. Sarma placed reliance on two decisions- III (1994) CPJ 505 (Smt. Hemanta Chutia v. United Commercial Bank, Calcutta and Ors.). This is the decision of this Forum i.e., State Commission, Assam. That also was a case regarding fraudulent withdrawal of money from the Bank and this Forum directed that the consumer is entitled to get back the money alongwith the interest @ S.B. Account but such a consumer is not entitled to any amount for mental agony, physical hardship, etc. as those claims are remote damages. The next case relied on by Mr. Sarma is I (1995) CPJ 43 (NC), (Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd. and Another v. P.R. Krishnan & Anr.). That also was a case regarding fraudulent withdrawal by a person and the National Forum held as follows: "In our opinion all that complainants were entitled to was to be compensated for the loss sustained by them by reason of the failure on the part of the Bank to pay the amount due under the fixed deposit on the date when it matured for payment. This could be done either by awarding them interest in lieu of damages or by awarding a lump-sum compensation based on the evidence, if any, adduced by the complainants regarding the actual loss sustained by them. The confering of a double benefit by awarding both interest as well as lump-sum compensation in our opinion is not justified in law."

That being the position of law we find that the award of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- by the District Forum with interest @ 12% and 15% as indicated above is without jurisdiction and the same shall stand quashed. Regarding uncharitable remarks, direction and enquiry, etc. all those shall stand expunged inasmuch the District Forum may not have the jurisdiction, to do such thing arising out of a complaint by a consumer, we are not deciding that at present and leave it open to be decided lateron.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.