PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER Both these appeals arise out of the single order of the State Commission; hence, decided by common order. Appeal No. 318 of 2009 ICICI Bank Vs. Naresh Kumar Jain has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party and Appeal No. 485 of 2009 - Naresh Kumar Jain Vs. ICICI Bank has been filed by the appellant/complainant gainst the order dated 6.6.2009 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, he State Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 13 of 2007 by which, while allowing complaint partly, OP No. 1 was directed to pay interest on Rs. 20,80,000/- @ 12% p.a. for 6 months against which, both the parties have filed these appeals. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainants purchased Government of India 6.5% Saving Bonds (Non-taxable) cumulative from OP No. 1 worth Rs.20,80,000/- on 3.6.2004. Complainant approached OP No. 1 on 6.6.2008 for pre-mature encashment of bonds after 3 years lock in period, but OP refused to redeem them on the ground that the bonds are redeemable only after a minimum lock in period of 3years. It was further alleged that OP was unjustified in deducting Rs.40,919/- on account of pre-mature redemption of bonds. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint against the OP as OP No. 2 issued bonds on behalf of OP No. 3. OPs resisted complaint and OP No. 1 submitted that complainant did not fall within purview of consumer as OP No. 1 had not provided any service, but was only a distributor/collecting agent for OP No. 2 and OP No. 1 appointed M/s. 3i-Infotech Ltd. as their ervice providerfor the aforesaid bonds. It was further submitted that on receiving application from the complainant and on further verification by M/s. 3-iInfotech Ltd. issued letter dated 7.7.2007 and returned the bonds to present after completion of 3years and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 2 submitted that complainant has not availed any service for consideration and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed complaint partly as mentioned above against which, these appeals have been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the ICICI Bank, R.B.I. and complainant himself in person who is also an Advocate and perused the record. 4. Learned Counsel for the OP submitted that even though bonds were redeemable after lock in period of 3years, Learned State Commission committed error in allowing 12% p.a. interest for a period of 6 months; hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned complainant submitted that learned State Commission committed error in not allowing compensation for the loss occurred due to non-receipt of money in time. Hence, appeal be allowed and in addition to the relief granted by the learned State Commission, compensation be also allowed. 5. Condition No. 21 of Annexure A-1, Government of India non-taxable Saving Bond runs as under: 1. Provision for Premature Encashment : After minimum lock in period 3 years from the date of issue, an investor can surrender the Bonds at any time after the 6th half year but redemption payment will be made on the following interest payment cycle. Thus the effective date of premature encashment will be 1st July and 1st January every year. However, 50% of the interest due and payable for the last six months of the holding period will be recovered in such cases both in respect of cumulative and Non-cumulative Bonds 6. This condition makes it clear that after 3 years Bond holder was entitled to surrender the Bond, but redemption payment was to be made on the following interest payment cycle meaning thereby, complainant who purchased Bonds on 3.6.2004 was entitled to surrender for pre-mature payment after 3.6.2007, but was entitled to receive proceeds only after 3.12.2017, the date on which next interest was payable. This has also been clarified by R.B.I. in Circular dated 12.4.2006, which runs as under: he effective date of premature encashment of Non-cumulative bonds will be 1st July and 1st January every year after completion of three years and for Cumulative bonds, the notionally 7th half yearly interest payment due date (The date can be any date and not necessarily 1st July and 1st January). However, 50% of the interest due and payable for the last six months of the holding period will be recovered in such cases, both in respect of cumulative and non-cumulative bonds. The bonds issued in March 2003 have completed 3 years in March, 2006 and have become eligible for premature encashment on July 1, 2006 (Non-cumulative) and notionally with effect from September 24, 2006 onwards in respect of Cumulative Bond i.e. 7th half yearly interest due date and so on. 7. Payment so made to the complainant on 3.12.2007 was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the issued Bonds. 8. As far as deduction of interest on premature payment is concerned, the aforesaid Condition No. 21 makes it clear that 50% of the interest due and payable for last 6 months to the holding period was to be recovered in case of pre-mature encashment. OP No. 1 has not committed any error in deducting 50% of the interest for next 6 months from the date of surrender of Bonds 9. In the light of above discussion, it becomes clear that learned State Commission committed error in allowing 12% p.a. interest on Rs.20,80,000/- for a period of 6 months and in such circumstances, Appeal No. 318/2009 filed by the OP/Appellant is to be allowed. 10. Complainant has filed Appeal No. 485 of 2009 for grant of compensation. As F.A. No. 318 of 2009 has been allowed and complaint stands dismissed, aforesaid Appeal No. 485 of 2009 becomes infructuous and complainant is not entitled to any compensation. 11. Consequently, Appeal No. 318 of 2009 ICICI Bank Vs. Naresh Kumar Jain & Anr. filed by the appellant is allowed and impugned order dated 6.6.2009 passed by learned State Commission in Complaint NO. 13 of 2007 is set aside and complaint stands dismissed. Appeal No. 485 of 2009 Naresh Kumar Jain Vs. Branch Manager, ICICI Bank filed by the complainant stands dismissed having become infructuous with no order as to costs.