Mr. Justice M.A.A. Khan, President—Heard.

Late Sh. Radheyshyam Sharma, brother of Sh. Sugan Chand, had opened two years Time Deposit Account No. 2265012 for Rs. 65,000/- with the appellant on 6.11.1992. Sh. Radheyshyam, the depositor died on 2.9.1993. Since he had not mentioned any nominee in the aforesaid account Sh. Suganchand respondent applied to the District Judge concerned for issue of a succession certificate to him in accordance with the provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925. Such certificate was issued in his favour on 20.5.1998 making him entitled to obtain a sum of Rs. 1,05,203/- from the appellant. The respondent duly submitted the succession certificate along with his claim to the appellant on 10.6.1998. On 3.8.1998 the appellant made a payment of Rs. 81,306/- to the respondent. Since this payment was not made in accordance with the direction contained in the succession certificate, issued by the District Judge concerned, the respondent filed his complaint before the Forum on 8.10.1998. It may be mentioned here that before filing the complaint the appellant had made a further payment of Rs. 8,942/- to the respondent on 9.9.1998. Any way the Forum after having heard the parties directed the appellant to pay the amount due to the respondent in terms of the succession certificate with interest as per rules. The Forum further directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 500/- to the respondent by way of cost of litigation. Aggrieved against such order of the Forum dated 1.4.1999, made in Complaint Case No. 1919/98 the appellant has filed this appeal before us.

2. Relying heavily upon Rules 87 and 139 of the Post Office Savings Bank Mannual Vol. I issued under the Authority of Director General of Post, India and Secretary to the Government of India, Deptt. of Post, Ministry of Communication, the learned Counsel submitted that interest on the amount, payable to the respondent on account of the Time Deposit Account of the deceased, was payable as per Rule 139 only. It was further submitted that since the appellant was not a party before the District Judge concerned in the matter of issue of succession certificate, such order/judgment was not binding upon the appellant. It was further submitted that had the appellant been made a party by the respondent to the petition/application filed before the District Judge, the appellant could have brought the correct position of rules of the department to the notice and knowledge of the District Judge. It was further submitted that the Forum should not have awarded the amount in terms of the order of the District Judge and further should not have also awarded interest to the respondent in contravention of Rule 139 of the mannual.

3. On the other hand the respondent, who argued his case himself, submitted that the appellant was very much a party to the succession proceedings before the District Judge. It was further submitted that the order of the District Judge in the matter of grant of succession certificate to the respondent, was binding upon the Forum and, therefore, it has committed no wrong in making its order in terms of the order of the District Judge.

4. The facts stated above are not much in dispute. the succession certificate, on the basis of which the appellant had released an amount of Rs. 81,306/- on 3.8.1998 to the respondent was submitted by the respondent to them. Such certificate has not been brought on the record of the Forum. Moreover, if the appellant considered that before issue of the succession certificate it should have been heard it would have approached the District Judge, after having come to know of the order granting succession certificate to the complainant. That was not done. Under such circumstances we find no merit in the argument that the order of the District Judge, made under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was not binding upon the Forum.

5. Insofar as the question of interest is concerned Rules 87 and 139 upon which relian