PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 29.12.2010 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in C.C. No. 93/2000 – Inder Mohan Vs. The Manager (NRI) Division, State Bank of India by which, complaint was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/appellant is Non-Resident Indian (NRI) working in Abudabi. Complainant remitted 50,000 US$ out of his foreign exchange account and he was allotted NRI (Second Series) Bonds on 1.4.1991 with maturity on 1.4.1998. On 23.3.1999, OP/respondent issued letter reminding complainant to surrender NRI Bonds for redemption. Complainant surrendered NRI Bond on 9.3.2000 with a request to re-invest the rupee maturity proceeds of Rs.41,60,213/- in a special term deposit for a period of 30 months, but OP invested maturity proceeds for a period of 30 months commencing from 23.3.2000 and denied payment of interest from 1.4.1998 to 17.3.2000. Inspite of notice interest was not paid. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission. OP resisted complaint and submitted that letter was sent to complainant on 20.11.1997 along with redemption application, but as complainant did not surrender bond reminder was given to him on 23.3.1999, but surrendered bonds on 15.3.2000 and RBI reimbursed the amount on 18.3.2000. Complainant was not entitled to any interest from the date of maturity till the date of surrender. It was further submitted that Bonds were floated by Government of India through RBI and OP was acting only an agent of RBI. It was further submitted that RBI ought to have impleaded as a party and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint against which this appeal has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant was entitled to get interest on redemption of NRI bonds from the date of maturity till redemption, but learned State Commission committed error in dismissed complaint; hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside and interest along with compensation may be awarded. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, appeal be dismissed. 5. It is not disputed that complainant invested his foreign exchange in NRI bonds for a period of 7 years from 1.4.1991 to 1.4.1998. As per version of OP complainant was sent letter on 30.11.1997 for redemption of bonds but as per version of complainant he did not receive any intimation. It is not disputed that OP sent letter to the complainant on 23.3.199, but complainant surrendered bonds on 9.3.2000, ie. almost after a period of one year. 6. The core question is whether any interest was payable on the amount invested in NRI Bonds from the date of maturity i.e., from 1.4.1998 to 17.3.2000 when bonds were redeemed. Redemption clause of terms of offer of NRI bonds runs as under: “If the instruments are presented for encashment after the date of maturity, the conversion rate which was prevalent on the date of maturity will be applied and no interest will accrue after the date of maturity”. This clause makes it crystal clear that if bonds are presented for encashment after the date of maturity, no interest was payable on the amount after the date of maturity, but he was entitled to get maturity amount as per conversion rate prevalent on the date of maturity. Learned State Commission rightly observed that no interest was payable on the deposited amount after the date of maturity till redemption. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant’s son was previously paid interest after maturity period and in such circumstances, appellant was also entitled to get interest on this amount. This argument is devoid of force because terms and conditions of bonds issued to appellant’s son may be different and even if the terms were same if any payment was made by mistake appellant does not get right to get interest on the basis of mistake committed in past. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant requested OP to invest this amount in a special term deposit account for 30 months from 1.4.1998 and OP committed mistake in putting this amount in term deposit from 18.3.2000. It is true that complainant asked OP to deposit this amount from 1.4.1998, but as maturity amount was received on 18.3.2000, this amount could not have been deposited from 1.4.1998 and OP has not committed any deficiency. 9. Leaned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in such circumstances, OP should have returned maturity amount to the complainant instead of depositing it from 18.3.2000. Merely because this amount has been deposited for 30 months from 18.3.2000, no deficiency can be attributed on the part of OP in not depositing it from 1.4.1998. When complainant came to know about investment of money from 18.3.2000, he could have asked OP to return the amount instead of investing it for 30 months, but he has not asked OP to return the amount and in such circumstances, appellant is not entitled to any relief. 10. Perusal of RBI letter dated 23.9.1988 further makes it clear that amount deposited in NRI bond and collected by OP was to be transferred to RBI and RBI on redemption of bonds returned amount to OP for disbursement to the complainant, meaning thereby, OP acted as agent of RBI and whatever was received from RBI was given by OP to the complainant and no deficiency can be attributed on the part of OP without impleading RBI as necessary party in the complaint. 11. In the light of aforesaid discussion it becomes clear that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law and appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs. | 
