Complainant/respondent on his retirement received a sum of Rs.13,80,000/- as retiral benefits.  He deposited the same with the petitioner Bank in ‘Govt. of India Deposit Scheme for Retiring Government Employees 1989’.  Petitioner gave due credit of interest under the Scheme.  On 17.4.2008 when the respondent approached the petitioner, he found that the interest awarded from 01.05.2007 to 30.09.2007 was debited from his Account in view of the Gazette Notification dated 13.8.2003 of the Govt. of India restricting the Scheme to a period of 3 years.  Aggrieved by this, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum.

District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that issuance of Gazette Notification would be deemed to be sufficient notice to the depositors.

 Respondents being aggrieved filed appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the complaint by observing thus:

“In view of the fact that the Bank did not render proper service by intimating the customers the fact that the Scheme has been closed and they should make alternative arrangement about the deposit of the amount, it is clear that the Bank has been different in its service.  The Bank should, therefore, compensate the appellant by payment of the amount of interest which it has debited from the account of the appellant.”

On the last date of hearing, we had directed counsel for the petitioner to put on record the Scheme as was prevalent on the date when the respondent made the deposits and the date on which it was

discontinued.  Petitioner has put on record the Scheme.  The Scheme does not provide that the operation of the Scheme was for a period of three years.  Respondent/complainant made the deposit in the year 2004.  Insofar as Gazette Notification dated 13.08.2003 is concerned, it would be seen that what to talk of the respondent/complainant, the petitioner was neither aware of the Gazette Notification nor the scope of the Gazette Notification.  Otherwise it would not have credited the interest for the period from 01.05.2007 to 30.09.2007.  As and when the Scheme was discontinued it was the duty of the petitioner to inform the respondent/complainant Account holder about the discontinuation of the Scheme after expiry of three years from the date of deposit.  As a service provider, it was the duty of the petitioner to inform the respondent when he deposited the amount that the Scheme was operative for a period of three years only.  There is certainly deficiency in service on the part of the appellant Bank.  No ground for interference in the impugned order is made out.  Dismissed.