Central Bank of India, which was the opposite party before the District Forum, has filed the present Revision Petition against the order dated 15.9.2005 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Commission at Hyderabad in First Appeal No.1116/1995 whereby the State Commission partly accepted the appeal, modified the order of the District Forum and directed the petitioner along with opposite party no.2 (respondent no.2) to pay the respondent/complainant a

-2-

sum of Rs.1,28,960/- jointly and severely with respondent, i.e. opposite party no.2 in the original complaint, along with interest                 @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 28.12.1991.  Rs.5,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs of litigation.

          Shortly stated, the facts are that the property of the respondent/complainant was acquired by the Government of A.P.  Respondent was awarded a compensation of Rs.1,78,601.78 paise.   Cheque in the sum of Rs.1,78,601.78 paise was deposited in A/c No.CD-154 which the respondent had opened with the petitioner bank.  Complainant/s grievance was that his lawyer, respondent No.2 herein, had fraudulently withdrawn the sum of Rs.63,431/- from his A/c in collusion with the petitioner bank on the basis of fake authorization letter.  Complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the petitioner to credit the sum of Rs.63,980/- which had been paid by the petitioner bank to the respondent no.2.

          District Forum, after taking into consideration the pleadings                       as well as the evidence led by the parties, allowed the                         complaint  and  directed  the  petitioner   to    pay     the   sum   of

-3-

Rs.1,78,601.78 paise with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.  Rs.25,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs.

          Petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The plea taken by the petitioner before State Commission was that respondent had taken a overdraft of Rs.63,980/-.  On deposit of the cheque of Rs.1,78,601.78 paise, petitioner adjusted the overdraft amount of Rs.63,980/- by exercising Bankers Lien and debited the same in the respondent’s A/c.   Petitioner had also debited the sum of Rs.63,431/- which had been paid to the respondent’s lawyer on the basis of alleged authorization given by the respondent/complainant in his favour.  The State Commission held that the petitioner was entitled to adjust the sum of Rs.63,980/- which had been taken as overdraft, from the amount deposited by the respondent.  In so far as the sum of Rs.63,431/- is concerned, which had been paid to the lawyer of the respondent, it was held that the petitioner was not entitled to adjust the same                  as the petitioner had done it without proper authorization from the

-4-

respondent.  That the petitioner was liable to credit the sum of Rs.63,431/- to the A/c of the respondent.  On the basis of these findings, the State Commission directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,28,960/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.  Rs.5000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs.

          On the last date of hearing, Counsel for the petitioner had put on record the Statement of Account of CD-154 which showed the credit balance of Rs.1,494.65 paise only.  As per Statement of Account, the respondent had withdrawn Rs.44,500/- subsequent to filing of the complaint.  Copy of the Statement of Account was handed over to the counsel for respondent No.1 who sought time to verify the same.

          Counsel for the respondent, after seeking instructions, states that the respondent had withdrawn the sum of Rs.44,500/- from the Account.

          The fora below and, particularly, the State Commission has recorded elaborate reasons to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had paid the sum of Rs.63,431/- to the respondent no.2,

-5-

who was the lawyer of the complainant, by in violation of the established norms in order to help the lawyer to withdraw the amount.

          We agree with the findings recorded by the State Commission that the petitioner had violated the established norms to make the payment to the respondent no.2.  Petitioner had made the payment on the basis of an authorization letter alleged to have been signed by the respondent/complainant.  Complainant had not issued any cheque in favour of respondent no.2 on the basis of which the petitioner could make the payment to the respondent no.2.  There is certainly deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner in making the payment to the respondent no.2 on the basis of an alleged authorization letter on a simple piece of paper.

          We have gone through the Statement of Account filed by the petitioner.  The balance amount after adjusting the over draft amount of Rs.63,980/- from the sum of Rs.1,78,601.70 Ps. comes to Rs.1,14,620/-.  Respondent/complainant had withdrawn the sum of Rs.44,500/-.  Petitioner bank has debited the sum of Rs.4,210.35 paise as interest on the over draft amount of Rs.63,980 paise. 

-6-

Rs.545/- have been charged for collection of the amount.  The balance amount excluding the sum of Rs.63,431/- in the Account of the respondent comes to Rs.1,494.65 paise.  By adding the sum of Rs.63,431/- which had been unauthorisedly paid by the bank to the respondent no.2, the total amount payable comes to Rs.64,925.65 paise.  This is the total outstanding amount due from the petitioner to the respondent/complainant. 

          Since this amount was lying in the Current Account, we reduce the rate of interest from 12% to 9%.  Accordingly, we direct the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.64,925/- along with simple interest               @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 28.12.1991 till realization alongwith compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/- which had been awarded by the State Commission.

          Petitioner was directed to deposit the sum of Rs.1 Lac with the District Forum vide order dated 08.2.2006.  Counsel for the petitioner states that in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Commission, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.1 Lac with the District Forum on 11.2.2006.  If on verification it be so, then the

-7-

liability of the petitioner to pay the interest shall be from 28.12.1991 till the deposit of the amount before the District Forum.

District Foirum is directed to release the sum of Rs.1 Lac deposited by the petitioner in favour of the complainant/respondent no. 1 along with the interest accrued. 

          Counsel for the petitioner states that the balance amount, if any, shall be paid to the respondent/complainant within eight weeks.

          Respondent no.2 has died.  His legal heirs have been brought on record.  Counsel for the petitioner prays that he be put at liberty to recover the amount from the legal heirs of respondent no.2, the sum of Rs.63,431/- which had been paid to respondent no.2, along with interest in accordance with law.  We leave it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedy against the legal heirs of respondent no.2 as per law.

          Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms