Through these proceedings purportedly u/s 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the original complainant, Balukanta Soni seeks to assail the order dated 06.10.09 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 791/06. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the complainant against the order dated 10.07.06 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Godhra by which the said Forum has ..2.. dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant on the ground that the it was barred by limitation and liberty was granted to the complainant to approach the competent civil court for redressal of her grievance. The State Commission also dismissed the appeal and maintained the finding recorded by the District Forum. Aggrieved by these orders, the complainant has filed the present proceedings. We have heard Ms. Laxmi Abichandani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent and have considered their respective submissions. The legality and correctness of the impugned orders passed by the fora below is sought to be assailed on the ground that the orders are not based on correct and proper appreciation of the factual position and are not in consonance with the settled legal position. The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint, have been amply noted in the impugned orders of the fora below and need no repetition at our end. However, for the purpose of answering the petition, we may simply notice that the grievance of the complainant was that after the FDR in question was seized by the authorities of Income Tax Department, the complainant had requested the bank to renew the said FDR for further term by addressing certain ..3.. communications but the bank did not do so probably on the ground that the original FDR was not produced for the purpose of renewal and making the endorsement. When the FDR was withdrawn from the Income Tax Department and was presented for renewal in the year 2003, the respondent bank agreed to pay the interest @ 3.5% for the period from 1992-2003 because in their reckoning the FDR was not renewed. In these circumstances, the important question is as to whether the action of the respondent bank in not renewing the FDR without production of the original FDR, amounts to deficiency or not?. Both the fora below have found that there was no deficiency in service because the bank has acted in accordance with the relevant regulations and guidelines issued from time to time in that behalf. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to a circular no. BCC:BR:95/171 dated 21.05.03 issued by the Bank of Baroda itself on the subject of renewal/automatic renewal of the FDR in case the depositor makes no prayer for renewal after the expiry of the terms of the fixed deposit. Counsel for both sides rely upon the said circular. This circular deals with two situations, one which is in relation to the renewal of the FDRs upto the period 1.8.98 and other for the subsequent period. The case in hand admittedly relates to the ..4.. period prior to 1.8.98 as the FDR in question was taken on 17.8.92 upto 18.12.92 and was not got renewed as the original FDR was seized by the authorities of the Income Tax Department and was not produced to the bank for renewal purpose though a request to the said effect was made to the bank. In such a situation, clause 3 of the said circular is relevant and is produced as under :- “Simple interest as above will be paid for overdue period of such deposit i.e. the simple interest at saving bank rate would be paid for the period from the due date of deposit till the date of renewal of the deposit.” Counsel for the petitioner submits that even if it is assumed that the complainant was not entitled to amount of interest payable on FDR due to non-renewal of the FDR for the purported reason of non-production of the FDR, still the bank was under mandatory obligation to pay simple interest at saving bank rate from the due date of deposit till the date of renewal of the deposit. Learned counsel for the respondent bank does not dispute this proposition but he contends that in terms of clause 3 of the circular, the interest @ 3.5% which was the prevalent rate of interest on saving bank in the year 2003 has already been disbursed to the complainant. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner states that the complainant was entitled to ..5.. simple interest at saving bank rate for the period from 18.12.92 till the FDR was presented for renewal in 2003. We have, therefore, no manner of doubt that even going by their own circular, the respondent bank was liable to pay simple interest at the saving bank rate which was prevalent during all those years from December, 1992 to 2003. Counsel for respondent Bank states that the bank will be properly advised to recalculate the interest in terms of clause 3 of the said circular and balance, if any, shall be credited to the account of the complainant or paid to her. In view of the foregoing reason, we partly allow this revision petition with a direction to the respondent Bank to recalculate the interest payable to the complainant and to pay the due amount to the complainant within a period of four weeks from today. Parties are left to bear their own costs.