Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer V/S R. Ramchandra Reddy S/o. Bali Reddy - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR 1/06

R. Ramchandra Reddy S/o. Bali Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Keshava Rao

31 Aug 2006

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR 1/06

R. Ramchandra Reddy S/o. Bali Reddy						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer The Manager, Indian Bank						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant R. Ramchandra Reddy against Senior Divisional Accounts Officer, South Central Railway Guntakal and Manager Indian Bank Gunj Road Raichur, herein after referred as Ops 1 & 2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- OP.No-1 had made two fixed deposits bearing No. FDR 423576 dt. 19-03-02 for a sum of Rs. 1,62,300/- and FDR.No. 423584 dt. 02-04-02 for a sum of Rs. 9,100/- with OP.No-2 towards contract agreement No. 20/N/GT/01 dt. 26-07-01. The amount covered under two FDRs was paid by complainant as security deposits for the said contract agreement entered into by the complainant as Railway Contractor and it was not permissible for the complainant to draw the said F.D from OP.No- 2. Therefore permission from OP.No-1 was necessary for drawing the said amount by the complainant. OP.No-1 had addressed a letter of permission to OP.No-2 on 01-12-02 to pay the amount covered under two FDs, OP.No-1 has to renew the said FD after their respective due dates. However OP.No-1 did not renew the two FDs after the due date on 19-03-03 which resulted in loss of permissible interest of 8% p.a. for the period from the date of maturity of said FDs until the payment dt. 22-12-04. This lapse on the part of OP.No-1 amounts to deficiency in service. OP.No-2 paid an amount of Rs. 1,75,284/- under FD.No. 423576 and Rs. 9,236/- under FD.No. 423584 on 22-12-04 vide demand drafts bearing No. 382743 & 382744 respectively inclusive of interest of 8% p.a. upto due date i.e, 19-03-03. Therefore the OP.No-2 has not paid any interest on the amount under two FDs from 19-03-03 to 22-12-04. The complainant has also addressed a letter dt. 14-09-05 duly requesting to pay the corresponding interest on the said amount from 19-03-03 to 22-12-04. But OP.No-2 replied on 27-09-05 by stating that it is seeking clarification from its higher authorities but so far not taken any action. The non-payment of interest by the OP.No-2 to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant also issued notice to OP.No-1 informing the loss of interest sustained and called upon him to make good the loss of interest. However OP.No-1 has also not taken any action. Therefore complainant is entitled to interest on the F.D. amount of Rs. 1,62,300/- and Rs. 9,100/- from 19-03-03 to 22-12-04 amounting to Rs. 23,996/- from OPs. who are jointly and severally liable to pay. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has prayed for direction to Ops to pay interest amount of Rs. 23,996/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 22-12-04 until its realization along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and loss. 2. In response to service of notice OP.No-1 remained absent when called out and so OP.No-1 has been placed Ex-parte. OP.No-2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement/objection as under:- The two FDs were duly discharged by OP.No-1 & complainant on presenting to OP.No-2 Bank through Sangameshwar Gramin Bank Tadur Br. Tq. Nagar-Kurnool for payment. Hence this OP.No-2 had to close the FDs and make payment to the collecting bank. For eligible to payment of interest on broken period i.e, from due date till the next renewal date FD has to be renewed for a minimum period of (15) days. In this case since neither OP.No-1 nor the complainant requested for renewal, but instead complainant presented FD through the above said bank for payment. Hence the proceeds of FD were paid as per the instructions of the collecting bank. Though OP.No-1 did not renew the deposits when the same were released but the complainant could have renewed the deposit before sending the same for collection through the collecting bank. Hence there is no deficiency in service by this OP.No-2. For the interest from the maturity date till the date of payment, FDs have to be renewed for minimum period of (15) days as per prevailing rules. Since the deposits were released to the complainant by OP.No-1, the same could have got renewed by the complainant for a further period of (15) days to become eligible for the broken period of interest. In this case the complainant merely presented the FD Receipts through his bankers for payment. As per prevailing rules, OP.No-2 had to make payment of the proceeds of FDR to the collecting bank. So there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of this OP.No-2. Hence for all these reasons the OP.No-2 has prayed for dismissal of complaint with exemplary cost. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn affidavit as his examination-in-chief/evidence and has got marked [8] documents at Ex.P-1 to P-8. The contesting OP.No.2 has filed sworn affidavit of its Manager as rebuttal evidence and has got marked [5] documents at Ex.R-1 to R-5. The OP.No.1 is set Ex-parte. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration:- 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service by the two Respondents as alleged? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative against OP.No-1 and in the negative against OP.No-2. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. It is the case of the complainant that for the contract agreement entered into by him with OP.No.1-Senior Divisional Accounts Officer SCR Guntakal under contract agreement No. 20/N/GT/01 dt. 26-07-01, he had paid certain amount as security deposits with OP.No.1 who in-turn made two FDs. under FDR.No. 423576 dt. 19-03-02 for Rs. 1,62,300/- and FDR.No. 423584 dt. 02-04-02 for Rs. 9,100/- with OP.No.2 Bank towards said contract agreement. As the said amounts were received by OP.No-2 from OP.No-1 under the account of complainant, it was not permissible for the complainant to draw the said F.Ds. from OP.No-1 and so permission from OP.No-1 was necessary for drawing the FD amount by the complainant. OP.No.1 had addressed a letter of permission to OP.No-2 on 01-12-04 to pay the amount covered under two FDs. The OP.No-1 had to renew the said FD after their respective due date but he did not renew the said FDS after due date on 19-03-03, which resulted loss of permissible interest on 8% p.a. for the period from the date of maturity of FDs until the payment of amount under two FDs made on 22-12-04. This lapse on the part of OP.No-1 amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant also issued notice to OP.No-1 informing the loss of interest and called-upon him to make good the loss of interest but he has not taken any action. It is also the case of the complainant that on 22-12-04 OP.No-2 paid an amount of Rs. 1,75,284/- under FD.No. 423576 dt. and Rs. 9,236/- under FD.No. 423584 vide demand draft bearing No. 382743 and 382744 respectively inclusive of interest at 8% p.a. until upto the due date i.e, 19-03-03. But OP.No-2 has not paid any interest on the said amount from 19-03-03 to 22-12-04. In this regard the complainant addressed a letter dt. 14-09-05 requesting to pay corresponding interest on the said FD amount from 19-03-03 to 22-12-04 but OP.No-2 replied on 27-09-05 stating that it is seeking clarification from its higher authorities but so far not taken any action. Therefore the non-payment of interest by OP.No-2 from 19-03-03 to 22-12-04 also amounts to deficiency in service. 7. As stated supra OP.No-1 has remained absent in-response to service of notice and has been set Ex-parte. So to say there is no denial or contraverting statements by OP.No-1 in this case. The contesting OP.No-2 in the written statement and in the evidence has submitted that the said two FDs were duly discharged by OP.No-1 & complainant. Since, neither the OP.No-1 nor the complainant requested for renewal of the FDs instead they presented FDs for withdrawal hence proceeds of FDs were paid upto the maturity period. Though OP.No-1 did not renew the two FDs when the same were released to the complainant he could have renewed the deposits before sending the same for collection through collecting bank. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the OP.No-2. 8. The complainant has produced [8] documents at Ex.P-1 to P-8 out of which Ex.P-6 is the copy of the letter dt. 01-12-04 of OP.No-1 addressed to OP.No-2 for release of F.D. of receipts on Account of Contractors Security Deposits. Ex.P-7 is the copy of FDR No. 423576 dt. 19-03-02 for Rs. 1,62,300/-. Ex.P-8 is the copy of another FDR.No. 423584 dt. 02-04-02 for Rs. 9,100/-. The first FDR at Ex.P-7 shows that it was for a period of (12) months with fetching interest at 8% p.a. on the Deposit amount. The second FDR at Ex.P-8 was for a period of (3) months fetching interest at 6% p.a. It also shows that these two FDRs were made by OP.No-1 on the account of complainant Ramachandra Reddy Railway, Contractor Raichur. The Respondent No-2 has also produced [5] documents out of which Ex.R-4 and Ex.R-1(1) & Ex.R-1(2) are the copies of Ex.P-6 to P-8 produced by complainant as discussed above. So it clear shows that the two FDRs under Ex.P-7 & P-8 = Ex.R-1 (1) & R-1(2) were made by OP.No-1 in the name of the complainant as the security amount deposited by the complainant as per the contract agreement and thereby these two FDRs were with OP.No-1 till he addressed Release Letter dt. 01-12-04 vide Ex.P-4 = Ex.R-4, after maturity. The maturity period of first FDR at Ex.P-7 was expired on 19-03-03 whereas 2nd FDR at Ex.P-8 was matured on 02-07-02. But the Release Letter at Ex.P-6 was issued on 01-12-04 and the amount under FDRs were paid on 22-12-04 as per the letter of Indian Bank dt. 22-12-04 which is not disputed by OP.No-2 Bank. OP.No-2 Bank has specifically contended that since the two FDRs were not renewed after expiry of maturity period so they have given agreed interest only upto maturity period. So it clearly shows that the interest under two FDRs at Ex.P-7 & P-8 were not given after the expiry of maturity period till the actual release of FD amount on 22-12-04. 9. OP.No-2, as stated earlier has asserted that neither the OP.No-1 nor the complainant renewed FDR after expiry of maturity period so they are not deficient in service for not having paid the interest on the FD amount after expiry of maturity period. Admittedly these two FDRs at Ex.P-7 Ex.P-8 = Ex.R-1 (1) & R-1(2) were with OP.No-1. under the terms of contract agreement till OP.No-1 issued Release letter under Ex.R-6 for the release of two FDRs. When this is so it clearly shows that OP.No-1 who was the custodian of two FDRs has not renewed the two FDRs after expiry of maturity period till 01-12-04, the release letter issued by him to OP.No-2. As stated supra OP.No-1 Senior Divisional Accounts Officer, South Central Railway Guntakal has remained absent and has not contested the case, against the complainant. This in-turn shows that OP.No-1 has no defence to challenge or dispute the claim of the complainant. Hence the act of non renewal of two FDRs after expiry of maturity period till Release letter issued by him amounts to deficiency in service by OP.No-1. Therefore we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency in service against OP.No-1 only and not against OP.No-2 Bank. So Point NO-1 is answered in the affirmative against OP.No-1 and in the Negative against OP.No-2. POINT NO.2:- 10. The complainant has sought for interest at 8% p.a. on FD amount under two FDRs from 19-03-03 to 22-12-04 amounting to Rs. 23,996/- jointly and severally against both OP.No-1 & 2 with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with cost. As discussed in Point No-1 the first FDR No. 423576 at Ex.P-7 shows the agreed rate of interest at 8% p.a. whereas 2nd FDR.No. 423584 at Ex.P-8 shows the rate of interest at 6% p.a. So the complainant is entitled 8% interest on the FD amount under FDR at Ex.P-7 and 6% p.a. on the FD amount under FDR at Ex.P-8 and not 8% p.a. as claimed. Consequently the complainant is not entitled to Rs. 23,996/- as calculated by him. However the complainant is entitled to receive interest on the two FD amount as per the agreed rate of interest under two FDRs for the period from the date of expiry of maturity period of respective FDR till 22-12-04 the date of payment from OP.No-1 along with interest at 6% on the total calculated amount from 23-12-04 till realization. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. OP.No-1 shall pay interest at 8% p.a. on the FD amount under FDR.No. 423576 from 19-03-03 till 22-12-04. And at 6% p.a. on the FD amount under FDR.No. 423584 from 02-07-02 to 22-12-04. Further the OP.No-1 shall pay interest at 6% p.a. on the total calculated interest amount under two FDRs from 23-12-04 till realization along with Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and cost. OP.No-1 shall comply this order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently the complaint against OP.No-2 is dismissed. Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi President Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri.Pampannagouda Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Kavita Patil Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.

This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant R. Ramchandra Reddy against Senior Divisional Accounts Officer, South Central Railway Guntakal and Manager Indian Bank Gunj Road Raichur, herein after referred as Ops 1 & 2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- OP.No-1 had made two fixed deposits bearing No. FDR 423576 dt. 19-03-02 for a sum of Rs. 1,62,300/- and FDR.No. 423584 dt. 02-04-02 for a sum of Rs. 9,100/- with OP.No-2 towards contract agreement No. 20/N/GT/01 dt. 26-07-01. The amount covered under two FDRs was paid by complainant as security deposits for the said contract agreement entered into by the complainant as Railway Contractor and it was not permissible for the complainant to draw the said F.D from OP.No- 2. Therefore permission from OP.No-1 was necessary for drawing the said amount by the complainant. OP.No-1 had addressed a letter of permission to OP.No-2 on 01-12-02 to pay the amount covered under two FDs, OP.No-1 has to renew the said FD after their respective due dates. However OP.No-1 did not renew the two FDs after the due date on 19-03-03 which resulted in loss of permissible interest of 8% p.a. for the period from the date of maturity of said FDs until the payment dt. 22-12-04. This lapse on the part of OP.No-1 amounts to deficiency in service. OP.No-2 paid an amount of Rs. 1,75,284/- under FD.No. 423576 and Rs. 9,236/- under FD.No. 423584 on 22-12-04 vide demand drafts bearing No. 382743 & 382744 respectively inclusive of interest of 8% p.a. upto due date i.e, 19-03-03. Therefore the OP.No-2 has not paid any interest on the amount under two FDs from 19-03-03 to 22-12-04. The complainant has also addressed a letter dt. 14-09-05 duly requesting to pay the corresponding interest on the said amount from 19-03-03 to 22-12-04. But OP.No-2 replied on 27-09-05 by stating that it is seeking clarification from its higher authorities but so far not taken any action. The non-payment of interest by the OP.No-2 to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant also issued notice to OP.No-1 informing the loss of interest sustained and called upon him to make good the loss of interest. However OP.No-1 has also not taken any action. Therefore complainant is entitled to interest on the F.D. amount of Rs. 1,62,300/- and Rs. 9,100/- from 19-03-03 to 22-12-04 amounting to Rs. 23,996/- from OPs. who are jointly and severally liable to pay. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has prayed for direction to Ops to pay interest amount of Rs. 23,996/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 22-12-04 until its realization along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and loss. 2. In response to service of notice OP.No-1 remained absent when called out and so OP.No-1 has been placed Ex-parte. OP.No-2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement/objection as under:- The two FDs were duly discharged by OP.No-1 & complainant on presenting to OP.No-2 Bank through Sangameshwar Gramin Bank Tadur Br. Tq. Nagar-Kurnool for payment. Hence this OP.No-2 had to close the FDs and make payment to the collecting bank. For eligible to payment of interest on broken period i.e, from due date till the next renewal date FD has to be renewed for a minimum period of (15) days. In this case since neither OP.No-1 nor the complainant requested for renewal, but instead complainant presented FD through the above said bank for payment. Hence the proceeds of FD were paid as per the instructions of the collecting bank. Though OP.No-1 did not renew the deposits when the same were released but the complainant could have renewed the deposit before sending the same for collection through the collecting bank. Hence there is no deficiency in service by this OP.No-2. For the interest from the maturity date till the date of payment, FDs have to be renewed for minimum period of (15) days as per prevailing rules. Since the deposits were released to the complainant by OP.No-1, the same could have got renewed by the complainant for a further period of (15) days to become eligible for the broken period of interest. In this case the complainant merely presented the FD Receipts through his bankers for payment. As per prevailing rules, OP.No-2 had to make payment of the proceeds of FDR to the collecting bank. So there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of this OP.No-2. Hence for all these reasons the OP.No-2 has prayed for dismissal of complaint with exemplary cost. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn affidavit as his examination-in-chief/evidence and has got marked [8] documents at Ex.P-1 to P-8. The contesting OP.No.2 has filed sworn affidavit of its Manager as rebuttal evidence and has got marked [5] documents at Ex.R-1 to R-5. The OP.No.1 is set Ex-parte. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration:- 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service by the two Respondents as alleged? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative against OP.No-1 and in the negative against OP.No-2. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. It is the case of the complainant that for the contract agreement entered into by him with OP.No.1-Senior Divisional Accounts Officer SCR Guntakal under contract agreement No. 20/N/GT/01 dt. 26-07-01, he had paid certain amount as security deposits with OP.No.1 who in-turn made two FDs. under FDR.No. 423576 dt. 19-03-02 for Rs. 1,62,300/- and FDR.No. 423584 dt. 02-04-02 for Rs. 9,100/- with OP.No.2 Bank towards said contract agreement. As the said amounts were received by OP.No-2 from OP.No-1 under the account of complainant, it was not permissible for the complainant to draw the said F.Ds. from OP.No-1 and so permission from OP.No-1 was necessary for drawing the FD amount by the complainant. OP.No.1 had addressed a letter of permission to OP.No-2 on 01-12-04 to pay the amount covered under two FDs. The OP.No-1 had to renew the said FD after their respective due date but he did not renew the said FDS after due date on 19-03-03, which resulted loss of permissible interest on 8% p.a. for the period from the date of maturity of FDs until the payment of amount under two FDs made on 22-12-04. This lapse on the part of OP.No-1 amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant also issued notice to OP.No-1 informing the loss of interest and called-upon him to make good the loss of interest but he has not taken any action. It is also the case of the complainant that on 22-12-04 OP.No-2 paid an amount of Rs. 1,75,284/- under FD.No. 423576 dt. and Rs. 9,236/- under FD.No. 423584 vide demand draft bearing No. 382743 and 382744 respectively inclusive of interest at 8% p.a. until upto the due date i.e, 19-03-03. But OP.No-2 has not paid any interest on the said amount from 19-03-03 to 22-12-04. In this regard the complainant addressed a letter dt. 14-09-05 requesting to pay corresponding interest on the said FD amount from 19-03-03 to 22-12-04 but OP.No-2 replied on 27-09-05 stating that it is seeking clarification from its higher authorities but so far not taken any action. Therefore the non-payment of interest by OP.No-2 from 19-03-03 to 22-12-04 also amounts to deficiency in service. 7. As stated supra OP.No-1 has remained absent in-response to service of notice and has been set Ex-parte. So to say there is no denial or contraverting statements by OP.No-1 in this case. The contesting OP.No-2 in the written statement and in the evidence has submitted that the said two FDs were duly discharged by OP.No-1 & complainant. Since, neither the OP.No-1 nor the complainant requested for renewal of the FDs instead they presented FDs for withdrawal hence proceeds of FDs were paid upto the maturity period. Though OP.No-1 did not renew the two FDs when the same were released to the complainant he could have renewed the deposits before sending the same for collection through collecting bank. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the OP.No-2. 8. The complainant has produced [8] documents at Ex.P-1 to P-8 out of which Ex.P-6 is the copy of the letter dt. 01-12-04 of OP.No-1 addressed to OP.No-2 for release of F.D. of receipts on Account of Contractors Security Deposits. Ex.P-7 is the copy of FDR No. 423576 dt. 19-03-02 for Rs. 1,62,300/-. Ex.P-8 is the copy of another FDR.No. 423584 dt. 02-04-02 for Rs. 9,100/-. The first FDR at Ex.P-7 shows that it was for a period of (12) months with fetching interest at 8% p.a. on the Deposit amount. The second FDR at Ex.P-8 was for a period of (3) months fetching interest at 6% p.a. It also shows that these two FDRs were made by OP.No-1 on the account of complainant Ramachandra Reddy Railway, Contractor Raichur. The Respondent No-2 has also produced [5] documents out of which Ex.R-4 and Ex.R-1(1) & Ex.R-1(2) are the copies of Ex.P-6 to P-8 produced by complainant as discussed above. So it clear shows that the two FDRs under Ex.P-7 & P-8 = Ex.R-1 (1) & R-1(2) were made by OP.No-1 in the name of the complainant as the security amount deposited by the complainant as per the contract agreement and thereby these two FDRs were with OP.No-1 till he addressed Release Letter dt. 01-12-04 vide Ex.P-4 = Ex.R-4, after maturity. The maturity period of first FDR at Ex.P-7 was expired on 19-03-03 whereas 2nd FDR at Ex.P-8 was matured on 02-07-02. But the Release Letter at Ex.P-6 was issued on 01-12-04 and the amount under FDRs were paid on 22-12-04 as per the letter of Indian Bank dt. 22-12-04 which is not disputed by OP.No-2 Bank. OP.No-2 Bank has specifically contended that since the two FDRs were not renewed after expiry of maturity period so they have given agreed interest only upto maturity period. So it clearly shows that the interest under two FDRs at Ex.P-7 & P-8 were not given after the expiry of maturity period till the actual release of FD amount on 22-12-04. 9. OP.No-2, as stated earlier has asserted that neither the OP.No-1 nor the complainant renewed FDR after expiry of maturity period so they are not deficient in service for not having paid the interest on the FD amount after expiry of maturity period. Admittedly these two FDRs at Ex.P-7 Ex.P-8 = Ex.R-1 (1) & R-1(2) were with OP.No-1. under the terms of contract agreement till OP.No-1 issued Release letter under Ex.R-6 for the release of two FDRs. When this is so it clearly shows that OP.No-1 who was the custodian of two FDRs has not renewed the two FDRs after expiry of maturity period till 01-12-04, the release letter issued by him to OP.No-2. As stated supra OP.No-1 Senior Divisional Accounts Officer, South Central Railway Guntakal has remained absent and has not contested the case, against the complainant. This in-turn shows that OP.No-1 has no defence to challenge or dispute the claim of the complainant. Hence the act of non renewal of two FDRs after expiry of maturity period till Release letter issued by him amounts to deficiency in service by OP.No-1. Therefore we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency in service against OP.No-1 only and not against OP.No-2 Bank. So Point NO-1 is answered in the affirmative against OP.No-1 and in the Negative against OP.No-2. POINT NO.2:- 10. The complainant has sought for interest at 8% p.a. on FD amount under two FDRs from 19-03-03 to 22-12-04 amounting to Rs. 23,996/- jointly and severally against both OP.No-1 & 2 with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with cost. As discussed in Point No-1 the first FDR No. 423576 at Ex.P-7 shows the agreed rate of interest at 8% p.a. whereas 2nd FDR.No. 423584 at Ex.P-8 shows the rate of interest at 6% p.a. So the complainant is entitled 8% interest on the FD amount under FDR at Ex.P-7 and 6% p.a. on the FD amount under FDR at Ex.P-8 and not 8% p.a. as claimed. Consequently the complainant is not entitled to Rs. 23,996/- as calculated by him. However the complainant is entitled to receive interest on the two FD amount as per the agreed rate of interest under two FDRs for the period from the date of expiry of maturity period of respective FDR till 22-12-04 the date of payment from OP.No-1 along with interest at 6% on the total calculated amount from 23-12-04 till realization. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. OP.No-1 shall pay interest at 8% p.a. on the FD amount under FDR.No. 423576 from 19-03-03 till 22-12-04. And at 6% p.a. on the FD amount under FDR.No. 423584 from 02-07-02 to 22-12-04. Further the OP.No-1 shall pay interest at 6% p.a. on the total calculated interest amount under two FDRs from 23-12-04 till realization along with Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and cost. OP.No-1 shall comply this order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently the complaint against OP.No-2 is dismissed. Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi President Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri.Pampannagouda Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Kavita Patil Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.