Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2.     Learned counsel for the petitioner states that an amount of Rs.4,86,000/- was withdrawn fraudulently by the Bank officials from the account of the petitioner on different dates starting from September 2009 to till October 2011. When a complaint was lodged with the Bank, then the Bank deposited the amount on 27.12.2011 with the saving Bank account of the petitioner. A complaint was filed for interest on the amount which was illegally withdrawn from the Bank account of the complainant along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- as the complainant could not purchase the property due to paucity of funds. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that no request was made by the complainant for refund of the amount withdrawn from his account and due to the fact that the District Forum did not have the jurisdiction as the matter relates to fraudulent transactions. The complainant thereafter preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission also dismissed the appeal relying on the letter dated 27.12.2011 and 05.08.2012 written by the complainant wherein the complainant has clearly stated that the amount has been received and nothing remains due. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the complainant has never written these letters and the State Commission has wrongly relied on these letters and dismissed the appeal. Accordingly, present revision petition has been filed.

3.     Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the complainant is entitled for interest and compensation as prayed for in the complaint.

4.     On the other hand, the leaned counsel for the respondent Bank stated that it is the case of the complainant that this amount was fraudulently withdrawn by the Bank officials and in these circumstances, the Consumer Forum does not have any jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The State Commission has also agreed with the same and the State Commission has relied on the letters dated 27.12.2011 and 05.08.2012 written by the complainant that the complainant had received the full and final amount and nothing was due. Learned counsel has further stated that it is not correct to say that the letter was not written by the complainant and has relied on the affidavit filed by the Sarpanch of the village who has also stated that the matter has been settled. The major thrust of the learned counsel for the respondent Bank is on the legal aspect that the Consumer Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain this complaint which alleges fraudulent transactions. Learned counsel further stated that the cashier of the Bank was authorized by the complainant to withdraw the amount on behalf of the complainant and he actually made all the transactions and after his death a complaint has been filed. When the complaint was filed, the Bank officials approached the relatives of the cashier Late Raj Singh and recovered the amount and deposited the same in the Savings Bank account of the complainant, thus, no interest becomes due on this amount.

5.     We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record. The fact is that the amount which was withdrawn from the Savings Bank Account of the complainant was deposited by the Bank officials in the SB Account of the complainant, after recovering the amount from the relatives of the cashier late Raj Singh, clearly speaks that the amount of Rs.4,86,000/- remained out of the SB Account of the complainant from the date of withdrawal till the date of re-deposit. It is true that in the matters of fraud, consumer forum does not have any jurisdiction to decide the case, however, in the present case, the amount was withdrawn from the account and has already been deposited with the SB Account of the complainant.  The amount was withdrawn by the cashier Raj Singh unauthorisedly and the bank has admitted the same, therefore, nothing is to be decided in respect of the fraud. As nothing has to be decided in respect of fraudulent transaction in the present matter, we are of the view that this complaint can be decided by the Consumer Forum. The matter is straight forward and can be decided by the consumer fora without requiring any elaborate and bulky evidence.

6.   The only question involved in the present matter relates to the issue whether the complainant would be entitled for interest on this amount for the period when the amount remained out of the SB Account of the complainant. As the amount remained out of the SB Account of the complainant for some period, the complainant would be entitled to get SB Account rate of interest on this amount for this period. There are 38 transactions on different dates right from September 2009 to October 2011 and the learned counsel for the complainant has not filed any calculation of interest and has only demanded Rs.40,000/- as interest in the complaint. In these circumstances, no exact amount of interest could be awarded in the present matter, however, keeping the amount of Rs.4,86,000/-, in view, we order a lumpsum interest of Rs.12,000/- (rupees twelve thousand only) to be paid by the respondent Bank to the complainant and the same be credited into the SB Account of the complainant if the account is still maintained, otherwise be paid by demand draft/banker cheque within a period of 45 days from today..

7.     Accordingly, revision petition no.3918 of 2013 stands disposed of.