Arguments heard. Reserved for orders Order to be pronounced after lunch. PRONOUNCED ON : 08TH JUNE, 2018 ( After lunch) ORDER This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Chhattisgarh dated 11.01.2018 passed in FA No. 795 of 2017. 2. Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that respondent Gannuram Sahu filed a consumer complaint alleging that he is a farmer and he deposited sum of Rs.6812/- under Laxmi Varsha Jama Rasi Yojna of the opposite party / bank for a period of 21 years with 13% p.a. The maturity value promised to be paid after 21 years was Rs.1,00,003/-. The complainant on 08.02.2017 applied for payment of maturity value. The petitioner bank, however, intimated the complainant that aforesaid scheme was closed long back on 21.12.2001 and in view of that, only a sum of Rs.54,517/- was due and payable to the complainant. Feeling aggrieved of refusal of the bank to pay the maturity amount, the complainant raised a consumer dispute by approaching District Forum Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3. The opposite party admitted that complainant had deposited Rs.6812/- in the term deposit scheme for a period of 21 years with maturity value of Rs.1,00,003/-. The opposite party took the plea that after the issue of fixed deposit, Reserve Bank of India issued a circular prohibiting opening of fixed deposit term for more than 10 years. Therefore, on 21.12.2001, the scheme was closed. A notice in this regard was pasted on the notice board of the bank. It is alleged that in view of the above, the maturity value payable to the complainant was Rs.54,517/-, which was offered to the complainant. 4. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner / bank to pay to the complainant maturity amount of the FDR i.e. Rs. 1,00,003/- with interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. 09.02.2017 till the date of order within one month from the date of the order of the District Forum. It was observed that in the event of failure of the opposite party to pay the amount within the stipulated time frame of one month, the interest rate on the said amount shall be 9% p.a. from the date of order till the realization. Besides, Rs.10,000/- was awarded as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation charges. 5. The petitioner / Bank not being satisfied with the order of the District Forum approached the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission on re-appreciation of evidence did not find merit in the appeal. The appeal was, accordingly dismissed. This has led to the filing of the revision petition. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that State Commission has ignored all the banks are required to function under the supervision of the Reserve Bank of India and they are bound by the directions of the Reserve Bank of India. It is submitted that State Commission has failed to appreciate that petitioner / opposite party bank had discontinued the fixed deposit of the respondent / complainant w.e.f. 21.12.2001 as per directive of the Reserve Bank of India and a public notice in this regard was pasted on the notice board of the bank. Therefore, offer of payment of Rs.54,517/- to the complainant was as per the guidelines and directives of Reserve Bank of India, as such, could not have been termed as deficient in service. 7. I do not find merit in the above contention. Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record copies of various circulars issued to the Commercial Banks by the Reserve Bank of India in relation to the interest rates on deposits. 8. It is not in dispute that term deposit account in favour of the complainant was opened for a period of 21 years @ 13% p.a.. The petitioner has placed on record circular dated 21.04.1992 issued by Reserve Bank of India to all Scheduled Commercial Banks including Regional Rural Banks. The relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced as under: “At present fixed rate of interest are prescribed for term deposits for three maturity periods in the range of 11.0 percent per annum to 13.0 percent per annum. As a step towards further rationalization of deposit rate, the number of rates prescribed is being reduced and it has been decided that effective April 22, 1992, the deposit rates for maturity of 46 days to 3 years and above would be a single prescription of “not exceeding 13.0 percent per annum.” The revised structure of deposit rates will apply only to fresh deposits and on renewals of maturity deposits. Banks are advised to use utmost discretion in offering deposit rates on various maturities within the cap of 13.0 per cent. The deposit rates of various maturities need to be based on the cost of funds, return on funds and inter-bank borrowing/lending status of individual banks. At any point of time, individual banks have to adopt uniform rates at all their branches and for all customers. While banks are free to determine the maturities and deposit rates, they would be required to prescribed a minimum of three maturities of their choice and the rates for each maturity should have an interest rate differential between any two successive maturity slabs of at least 0.25 percentage point. The banks should carefully set their own deposit rates taking into account their percentage of the future course of inflation and real rates of interest.” 9. On reading of the above, it is clear that at the time of opening of fixed term deposit account in favour of the complainant, there was no restriction on the banks for opening the term deposit for long period and the cap on payment of interest was upto 13%. Thus, it is clear that term deposit was opened as per the norms applicable. 10. In the written statement, Opposite party has claimed that term deposit of the complainant was closed on 21.12.2011 as per the directives received from Reserve Bank of India and in this regard, notice was pasted on the notice board of the bank. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to show me any such directive which required the opposite party / bank not to continue with the term deposit of 21 years. Otherwise also, if the sake of arguments, it is assumed that such a directive was received by the opposite party / bank, in my considered view, while closing the term deposit account, the opposite party was under obligation to serve a personal notice on the complainant, which obviously has not been done. Pasting of notice on the notice board of the Bank’s Branch cannot be termed as service of notice of closure of FDR on the complainant. Thus, in my opinion, failure of the opposite party to inform the complainant about the closure of his term deposit amounts to deficiency in service. 11. Lastly, counsel for the petitioner has referred to communication dated 01.07.1996 issued by Reserve Bank of India to all the Banks including Regional Rural Banks. The said communication reads as under: “Please refer to our directive DBOD. No.Dir.BC.151/C.347/85 dated December 27, 1985, as amended from time to time. In this connection, attention is invited to paragraph 1 (b) of our Governor’s circular No.CPC. BC.156/07. 01.279/96-97 dated July 1, 1996. With a view to providing banks greater flexibility in determining their term deposit rates, effective July 2, 1996, commercial banks are free to fix their own interest rates on domestic term deposits of over one year. Furthermore, with the developments in the money markets and the progressive move from the cash credit system to loan system, there is a need for providing some outlet for management of short term deposits funds. Hence, it is necessary to reduce the minimum period of term deposits from 46 days to 30 days. Accordingly, effective July 2, 1006, on domestic term deposits of 30 days and upto one year the interest rate is prescribed at not ‘not exceeding 11.0 per cent per annum.’ The revised domestic term deposit rates will apply only to fresh deposits and on renewals of maturity deposits. Banks should obtain the prior approval of their respective Boards for the deposit rates they will be following on deposits of maturity of over 1 year. At any point of time, individual banks should adopt uniform rates at all their branches and for all customers. All other instructions issued from time to time in this regard will remain unchanged. An amending directive DBOD No. Dir.BC.89/13.01.01.96 dated July 1, 1996 is enclosed. 12. The above said letter also, in my view, is of no avail to the petitioner because letter clearly specifies that revised domestic term deposit shall apply only to the fresh deposits or on renewal of the maturing deposits. Instant case is neither a case of fresh deposit after the issue of this circular nor the case of renewal of the deposit. Therefore, in my opinion, circular has no bearing on the finding of this case. 13. In view of the discussion above, I find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned finding of the Fora below in exercise of revisional jurisdiction which is limited to the extent of jurisdictional error or material irregularity. Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. | 
