Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2.      Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.  

3.      The case of the complainant in nutshell is that complainant opened one account under 10 years period Pension Payable Scheme in State Bank of India, UIDP,  Khatiguda on 26.10.1992 and he was supposed to deposit Rs. 1000/- every month till its maturity and it was assured that the complainant will receive Rs.2285/- each month as pension on maturity amount of Rs.2,30,740/- with interest @ 12%.

4.      It is alleged inter alia by the complainant that  after payment of last installment when asked for the maturity amount, he was issued with one term deposit certificate of Rs. 2,30,740/- to the complainant and credited Rs.2285/- to the complainant’s savings bank account No. 1007853285 on each month till December, 2005 with effect from September, 2002. After December, 2005, the opposite parties credited an amount of Rs.1097/- in each month instead of Rs. 2285/-.. So the complainant made grievance before the opposite parties but the opposite party no.1 remained silent. The opposite party no.1 replied to the complainant by asking him to deposit Rs. 38,934/- within one month as the complainant is eligible to get interest @10% instead of 12% as per the R.B.I. guidelines. Challenging the said demand for deficiency of service, complaint was filed.

5.      The opposite party filed written versions by admitting about the facts of deposit of amount every month with the opposite party by the complainant for a period of ten years. It is also admitted that pension maturity amount would be Rs. 2,30,740/- and the complainant was assured an amount of Rs. 2285/- as pension every month. The complainant was also paid Rs.2285/- per month from November, 2002 to December, 2005. But in December, 2005, an amount of Rs. 1097/- per month was paid as pension because the mistake was rectified as per the RBI guidelines. So the complainant was asked to refund Rs.38,924/- within one month as he was to get interest @10% instead of 12%. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

6.      After hearing the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-

“……Accordingly while allowing the complaint petition, we direct the Opposite Parties to pay  pension @ Rs. 2285/- per month and the complainant is not entitled to refund Rs. 38,934/-. Further, we hold that the Opposite Parties having demanded refund of Rs. 38,934/- under Annexure-4, have committed deficiency in service, as such when all the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay a  sum of Rs. 5000/- towards compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum committed error in law by not considering the RBI guidelines and submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party. According to him, by mistake, they have allowed 12%, but it should be 10%. After  taking note of the RBI guidelines with regard to interest, they have asked for refund of 38,934/- from the complainant. The District Forum ought to have considered considered all these facts.

8.      Considered the submissions, perused the DFR and impugned order.

9.      All the facts as submitted by the complainant are admitted by the opposite party. But the only question that arose whether the appellant has committed error by reducing the interest from 12% to 10%.

10.    The Opposite Party has filed Perennial Pension Plan Scheme. Clause-iv is as follows:

          “ (iv) Under both the plans, the pension will be payable perennially, i.e. as long as the depositor desires to draw it. Under both the plans pension receivable will b subject to revision depending on prevailing interest rates as per the directives of Reserve Bank of India, issued from time to time.”

          Above circular shows that on floating rate of interest the pension is available. It is revealed from letter of SBI that from 26.10.2002  the rate of interest has been 10% instead  of 12% which was approved by Branch Office  wrongly. So in our opinion, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

           In the result, the impugned order is set aside  and the appeal is allowed.

           DFR be sent back forthwith.

           Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.