Heard learned counsel for  the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.      This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short). Parties hereinafter were arrayed as the complainants and OPs as per their nomenclature before the learned District Forum.

3.      The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has purchased FDR of Rs.1,00,000/- on 15.2.2000 for 84 months which is to be payable  on 15.2.2007 for an amount of Rs.2,21,144/-. According to the complainant, when she produced the FDR after maturity on 24.2.2007 for withdrawal of the amount, instead of payment of Rs.2,21,144/-,  she was paid Rs.2,06,613/-. But the complainant received the amount with protest and immediately informed the OP to pay the deficit amount of Rs. 14,531/-. So the complainant alleged the fact to the OP who did not listen to it. Therefore, finding deficiency in service on the part of the OP, complainant filed the complaint.

4.      OP filed written version stating that the complainant has deposited Rs.,1,00,000/- in a fixed deposit account for 84 months with rate of interest 10.5% per annum as per the SBI/RBI guidelines. According to the OP, the value of the fixed deposit with accrued interestcomes to Rs.2,06,613/- but it has mentioned in the FDR for payment of Rs.2,21,144/- which is apparently error on record. The amount written on the DFR is a sheer clerical error. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled  to get refund of any differential amount.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum pleased the following order:-

                             “xxxxxxxxx

            That, the complaint petition is allowed on contest against the opp.party. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.14,531.00 (Rupees Fourteen thousand five hundred thirty one) together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the false till actual realization to the complainant. The opposite party is also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) as compensation and Rs.2,000.00 towards cost of litigation to the complainant. In view of the principle settled by the Apex Court in the case of Gaziabad Development Authorityvrs. Balbir Singh reported in 2004 C.J.D.88 (SC), it is further directed that the bank will pay the compensation to the complainant and recover the amount so paid from the person concerned responsible for such act of negligence. The above order has to be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the fact that this mistake is not deliberate but a typographical mistake and the benefit of the same should not be extended to the complainant. He submitted that as per the RBI guidelinesfor any arithmetical error necessary rectification should be done at once. In the instant case, when they came to know about the arithmetical error, they have rectified it. When the actual amount has been paid mere typographical error should not stand on the way to question such amount. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order including the DFR.

8.      In the instant case,  all the facts are admitted by the OP. But the OP admitted that this is a clerical error by  mentioning amount of Rs.2,22,144/- instead of Rs.2,06,613/- to which complainant  is entitled as per the rate of interest available to him. Since the right amount has been paid to the complainant,  there lies no cause of action to file the case.

9.      We have found that the error as to the exact amount of Rs.2,06,613/- being a printed error or arithmetical error for not mentioned same and the complainant is not entitled to get more than Rs.2,06,613/- as per the rate of interest 10.5%. We are of the view that the typographical or arithmetical error committed by the Bank but the complainant’s entitlement is intact.  We find there is no deficiency in service at all. If the rate of interest mentioned in the FDR and the total amountcalculated is paid but printing of other amount of Rs.2,21,144/- being erroneous, the complainant has nothing to do  but to get the entitlement. In this regard, we are not inclined to sustain the impugned order. As such the impugned order is set aside and the appeal stands allowed. No cost.

            The statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon if any on proper identification.

            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.