This revision petition under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Oriental Bank of Commerce, the opposite party in the complaint before the District Forum, is directed against order dated 11.02.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand in First Appeal No.344/2010.

               While upholding the finding recorded by the District Forum to the effect that payment by the opposite party without verification of signatures on the cheque was deficiency of service, the State Commission has set aside the direction regarding award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

               Vide order dated 22.07.2013 notice in this petition was confined to the point of interest. 

               Having heard counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that there is no substance in the plea of the Bank.  The operative part of District Forum’s order dated 04.11.2010 reads as under:

                       “On the findings given above, we hold that the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for.  Accordingly, we direct the O.P. Bank to credit a sum of Rs.3,91,000/- in the current account of the complainant’s firm and also pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.   All the aforesaid amount must be paid to the complainant within sixty days, failing which penal interest shall be payable @ 18% p.a.  Accordingly, this complaint case is allowed.”

               It is manifest from the afore extracted order that direction relating to award of interest @ 18% p.a. was to come into operation in the event of the bank failing to pay to the complainant the amounts awarded within 60 days of its order.

-3-

               Admittedly, no amount in terms of the directions issued by the District Forum was paid by the petitioner bank within 60 days.  It is not shown as to whether the operation of the order of the District Forum was stayed by the State Commission.  If so, when?  It is also pertinent to note that though the bank did prefer this revision petition within the period of limitation, yet the operation of the order impugned in this petition was stayed only on 22.07.2013, i.e. after a lapse almost three years from the date of order by the District Forum.  Therefore, after the expiry of a period of 60 days from the date of order of the District Forum, grant of interim grant of interim stay of operation of the impugned order was of no consequence.  We do not find any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned order, warranting our interference.  The revision petition is dismissed accordingly.  No costs.