STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SHAMBHU NARAIN SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First and foremost question is whether the complaint filed by Shri Shambhu Narain Sinha, the complainant/respondent, was within time? The facts of this case are that the complainant Sh. Shambhu Narain Sinha had an account in the main Branch of State Bank of India, Munger. On 09.06.1993, when the complainant went to the Bank to withdraw Rs.1500/-, he came to know that Rs.20,000/- had already been withdrawn fraudulently on 03.11.1993, for which he made complaint to the Bank Manager. FIR was also lodged. The District Forum came to the conclusion that the police investigation was going on, report of the expert, over specimen signature was not clear and the case was disposed of without any prejudice to the claims and counter claims of the complainant and the petitioner Bank. Succinctly stated, the case was not decided by the District Forum and parties were supposed to seek redressal of this problem from some other Forum.

(2.) On appeal, the State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Bank to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant with interest as per Bank rate, from the date of fraudulent withdrawal to the date of actual payment. The bank was also directed to pay the cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner SBI has filed the present revision petition.

(3.) We have heard both the counsel for the parties. It may be stated here that the complaint filed by the complainant appears to be barred by time. The complainant himself admitted that he came to know about the said fraudulent withdrawal on 09.06.1993, however, the complaint was filed before the District Forum on 18.10.1995. The complaint was filed after a period of two years. Section 24-A prescribes the limitation period, as follows :