The indisputable facts of this case are as follows.  The complainant Sh. Kishan Lal Kohli deposited a sum of   Rs. 1,42,600/- with the State Bank of India on 5^th May 1989 in the Special Term Deposit for three years.  It was to fetch interest @ 12% and its maturity date was 1^st February 1992 and maturity amount was Rs. 2,03,319/- subject  to the condition that the Bank would renew the deposit for a similar term at the said rate of interest at the time of renewal of STDR.  Thereafter, the complainant has been approaching the Bank to give him back the said amount but it failed to do so.  Legal notice was also sent by the complainant and the postal receipts dated 4^th August 2009 and 15^th July 2009 have been placed on the record.  The complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum was permitted and the State Bank of India was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,03,319/- as on 1^st February 1992 with interest from time to time of STDR as per bank policy till its realization.  The complainant was also found entitled to a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation charges of Rs. 5,000/-.  The State Bank of India was directed to pay the amount within 30 days, failing which, the complainant will also be entitled to further interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.

2.      The District Forum sent notices to the State Bank of India.  The State Bank of India did not appear before the District Forum and was proceeded against Ex parte on 16^th February 2010.  No effort was made by the State Bank of India to get the Ex parte set aside.  It may be mentioned here that Kishan Lal Kohli had filed this case through his Special Power of Attorney Shyam Sunder Kohli who happens to be his real brother.  The appeal was filed before the State Commission.  Aggrieved by that order, the State Bank of India preferred an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission dismissed its appeal on the following grounds. The appeal was filed 223 days from the pronouncement of the said order by the District Forum.  The State Commission placed reliance on “Union of India Vs. Vijay Laxmi reported in 2006 (1) CPC 61”, “State of Nagaland Vs Lipokao and Others reported in 2005 (2) RCR (Criminal) 414” and “D. Gopinathan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and another, reported in (2007) 2 SCC, 322”. The State Commission rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before it.

3.          Secondly, the State Commission also held :-

“Admittedly, in the present case the opposite parties were deficient in service neither giving the status of the STDR of the complainant nor renewing his STDR in question.  In this view of the matter, we feel that District Forum was justified in accepting the complaint and issuing the directions as noticed above in the impugned order, which does not call for any interference in this appeal.”

4.      I see no reason to interfere in the order passed by the Fora below.  The money in question belongs to the complainant and it must go to him.  However, I am concerned with the anxiety displayed by the learned counsel for the State Bank of India.  He vehemently argued that money most go in the hands of the correct person.  The whereabouts of the complainant are not known.  It is also not clear whether he is alive or he has died.  Brother does not come within the 1^st class category of successors of the deceased, if any.  In that event, children of the deceased would have preferential right than the brother.

5.      I find force in this argument in a measure.  The State Bank of India has alleged nowhere that the power of attorney is forged one.  In case as it stands proved, if it is a genuine document, the State Bank of India cannot question the authority of the power of attorney.  The State Bank of India is directed to deposit the remaining amount as ordered by the learned District Forum, within one month, failing which, it would carry interest @ 9%.  The District Forum would disburse the said amount to the power of attorney subject to his filing an affidavit stating that the claimant Sh. Kishan Lal Kohli is alive and will furnish his present address and if he has got telephone number that will also be furnished by him.  Subject to this condition, the petition has no merit and the same is therefore, dismissed in limine.