ORDER

PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

                This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.12.2014 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla  (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 335 of 2014, Ajay Chauhan vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce by which, appeal was allowed.

2.     Brief facts of the case are that late Shri Devi Saran had made one fixed deposit with the OP/Petitioner bank on 01.06.1992 in the sum of Rs.20,254/-, which was to mature on 01.12.1992.  He had another term deposit in the sum of Rs.1,81,500/-, which was to mature on 04.07.1994.  The said Shri Devi Saran died on 26.01.1993.  Complainant/Respondent applied for succession certificate in respect of the assets and liabilities of the said late Shri Devi Saran.  That was issued in his favour on 06.08.2011.  He then approached the OP/Bank for payment of the money due against the aforesaid two deposits, as also the money outstanding in the savings bank account in the name of the said Shri Devi Saran.  OP bank paid the money with interest for a period of three years beyond the date of maturity of the aforesaid two term deposits whereas he was entitled to be paid interest upto the date of payment of money, without cap of three years.  Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum.  Opposite Party resisted complaint and submitted that complaint is not maintainable as complainant received genuine payment from opposite party without any protest.  It was further submitted that as per Guidelines of RBI and Circular of opposite party issued in pursuance to RBI Guidelines, payment has been made and there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party in making payment, hence complaint be dismissed.  Learned District Forum, after hearing both the parties, dismissed complaint.  Complainant filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeal and directed opposite party to pay interest on aforesaid deposits in accordance with para 11(c) of the Master Circular 2004 interest rates, against which this Revision Petition has been filed.

3.     Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

4.     Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of receiving due payment by complainant without protest and inspite of making payment  by OP in accordance with Guidelines of RBI issued in the year, 2011, Learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.  On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law as per RBI Circular of 2004; hence revision petition be dismissed.

5.     It is not disputed that depositor, late Shri Devi Saran deposited amount with opposite party in the year 1992 and he died on 26.1.1993 and complainant after obtaining succession certificate in 2011, applied for payment and opposite party made payment of deposited amount with some interest on 9.2.2012 and complaint has been filed on 15.3.2012, i.e., after more than a month after receiving payment without any protest.  Once complainant has received payment from opposite party without protest, complaint for rest of the amount is not maintainable.

6.     Learned District Forum dismissed complaint, in the light of RBI Guidelines dated 16.8.2011, whereas learned State Commission after referring RBI Guidelines dated 16.3.2004, allowed appeal and directed opposite party to make payment in accordance with Guidelines of 2004.  Admittedly complainant applied for payment in the year 2011 after issuance of Guidelines by RBI on 1.7.2011.  In such circumstances, opposite party was bound to make payment of interest on deposited amount in accordance with Guidelines of 2011, which has been made by opposite party and learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal on the basis of RBI Guidelines issued in 2004 and in such circumstances impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7.     Learned counsel for respondent submitted that as per opposite party’s policy dated 16.8.2011, payment of interest for the period beyond three years was to be considered on case to case basis/ on merits, at the P&D Department of the Head Office and respondent was entitled to aforesaid interest.  Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn our attention to letter dated 2.12.2011, in which after considering complainant’s case, it was directed that opposite party was to proceed as per Circular dated 16.8.2011, issued by opposite party meaning thereby,  Opposite Party did not think it proper to pay interest for remaining years as per Guidelines of 2011, issued by RBI and in such circumstances, we do not find any deficiency on the part of opposite party and learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal hence revision petition is to be allowed.

8.     Consequently, revision petition filed by petitioner is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.12.2014 passed by the learned State Commission in First Appeal No. 335 of 2014 - Ajay Chauhan vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce is set aside and order of the District Forum dated 25.8.2014 passed in complaint No. 46 of 2012 - Ajay Chauhan vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce is affirmed.  Parties to bear their own costs.

9.     Amount deposited by the petitioner in pursuance to order dated 16.4.2015 may be returned by the registry to petitioner alongwith interest accrued, if any.