JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. This order shall decide the two above mentioned revision petitions which arise out of two different cheques pertaining to Goloke Dutt, the complainant. Somnath Mitra, complainant own employee withdrew an amount of Rs.81,538/- and Rs.1,38,115/- from current account of the complainant by forging his signatures. When it came to light, the complainant lodged a FIR with the police on 30.12.2006. The Complainant filed two separate complaints against the HDFC Bank Ltd, Petitioner/ OP in this case, before the District Forum, praying that OP be directed to pay a sum of Rs.85,138/- and Rs.1,38,115/-, respectively, with interest and Rs.2,00,000/- each, towards compensation. 2. The main defence set up by the OP/petitioner was that the misappropriation of funds was conducted by his employee and the matter should be investigated by a criminal court. OP also contended that the complaint was filed before the District Forum in the month of August, 2008, whereas the cause of action arose prior to the elapse of two years. Consequently, the case is barred by time. 3. The District Forum vide its orders dated 26.10.2010 and 28.10.2010 allowed both the complaints, compensation in the sum of Rs.85,138/- and Rs.1,38,115/- in respect of six cheques described in the petition of complaint was granted. Compensation in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- was granted, total being Rs.1,68,115/- was ordered to be paid within 45 days from the date of communication of that order, failing which it will carry interest @ 10% p.a., till full realization. 4. In the second complaint, it was ordered that payment of Rs.85,138/- along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- be paid by the OP within 45 days from the date of communication of that order, failing which it will carry interest @ 10% p.a., till full realization. The State Commission dismissed the appeals. 5. We have heard both the counsel and perused the brief notes submitted by Sh.Goloke Dutt, the complainant. There is no dispute that the signatures of Sh.Goloke Dutt were forged. The report of the Handwriting Expert was also placed on record. This is also an admitted fact that Somnath Mitra was arrested and was confined to police and jail custody, for a considerable period and charge-sheet against him has been submitted under Sections 408, 467, 468, 474 and 477A of IPC. 6. The cause of action arose when it came to the knowledge of the complainant that some forgery has been committed and he has been cheated with such a huge amount. The FIR was registered on 30.12.2006. The complaint was filed on 13.08.2008. Consequently, the case is within time. 7. As a matter of fact, there has been contributory negligence on the part of the Bank as well as the complainant. His own employee cheated him. It is also not explained whether some amount was recovered from the possession of Somnath Mitra. There should not be unjust enrichment. The complainant is also responsible because his own employee cheated him as well as the Bank. 8. The Bank is also negligent. There is deficiency on the part of the Bank for lack of care in tallying, comparing signatures in his current account with the cheques deposited. The State Commission was pleased to hold :- hirdly, the Appellant stated that the Bank personnel considered the pictorial identity of the signature of the current account holder with the signature on cheque in question but, in our view, the Bank should be very careful while disbursing any amount from any account. Nowadays, very sophisticated electronic gadgets are there in the Bank which facilitate to compare the signature of the account holder within seconds. Had the Bank employees been careful enough in finding out the genuineness of the signature put on the disputed cheques they would have come to know that those are fabricated ones 9. The fora below have taken note of the fact that for the above said reasons, the complainant is not entitled to any past interest nor the complainant has filed revisions in respect of the enhancement of the amount. He has not claimed interest. He is not entitled to that as well, because contributory negligence on his part also stands established. He should have given the cheques to a trusted person. Consequently, the revision petitions are without merit and are hereby dismissed.