We shall dispose of both the Revision Petitions as the facts are the same and the point of law involved in them is the same. Facts are being taken from Revision Petition No.4552/2010. -2- Complainant/petitioner obtained an FDR of Rs.5,000/- from the respondent bank which matured on 20.1.1993 and the maturity amount was Rs.5,511.35p. FDR was again renewed for 179 days and the maturity amount became Rs.5,836.93p. However, the FDR was misplaced by the complainant and the same could be traced only in March, 2001. Thereafter, the petitioner visited the bank to get the FDR renewed from the back date i.e. 18.07.1993, but the bank refused to renew the FDR from the said date. Attributing unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, complaint was filed before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay amount of Rs.5,836/- due on 18.07.1993 along with interest @ 11% quarterly compoundable from 18.07.1993 onwards till actual payment. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.3,300/- were awarded. Respondent was also restrained from making any tax deducting at source. Respondent being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been partly allowed. The State Commission -3- disposed of the appeal by modifying the order of the District Forum by granting only simple interest at the rate of interest then prevailing on the FDR amount after 18.07.1993 till the date of payment. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Petitioner could not be paid the agreed rate of interest after the date of maturity. Request of the petitioner to get the FDR renewed was declined by the respondent bank. Since the FDR was never got renewed, the bank was not obliged to pay the rate of interest agreed at the time of taking of the FDR. The State Commission has rightly directed the bank to pay the simple rate of interest then prevailing on the FDR amount. No infirmity is called for in the impugned order. Dismissed. | 
