1. By this order, we propose to dispose the above noted revision petitions involving exactly similar question of law and facts. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, facts relevant for the disposal of above noted revision petitions are that the petitioners in the respective petitions filed independent complaints against the respondent opposite party alleging deficiency in service in relation to their respective accounts. It is the case of the complainants that both of them opened fixed deposit accounts for Rs.40,000/- each with the opposite party and alongwith the fixed deposit, zero balance saving accounts were also opened. The fixed deposit accounts was opened in the year 1998 and the FDRs were renewed from time to time, for the maturity amount. The OP, however, on maturity of the last FDR, without any authorisation from the petitioners renewed their respective FDRs for the face value and unilaterally transferred the interest accrued i.e. Rs.9293.24/- on each of FDR in their respective saving bank accounts. Not only this, thereafter, the OP made quarterly deduction of Rs.750/-, Rs.830/- and Rs.830/- each by making debit entry in the respective accounts of the complainants on the ground that they had failed to maintain the minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- in their saving back accounts. When the complainants came to know about this, they contacted the OP bank and they were told that since they had failed to maintain minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- each in their respective saving bank accounts, they have been levied with the service charge. The complainants were also told that if they were not satisfied with the above condition, they may close their accounts. The complainants accordingly closed their accounts and the opposite party after deduction of Rs.830/- as service charges as on January 28 paid the remaining balance in the respective accounts to the petitioners. This led to the filing of the consumer complaints. 3. The consumer complaints were resisted by the bank. According to the respondent bank, they had rightly deducted the service charges from the respective saving account of the petitioners as they had failed to maintain the minimum balance. 4. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record allowed the respective complaints filed by the petitioners and passed similar directions which reads as thus: 1. The OP shall refund Rs.9293.24 as interest and deposits to the complainant. 2. The OP shall pay Rs.15000/- as compensation to the complainant. 3. The OP shall also pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. In all the OP shall pay Rs.34,293.24/- to the complainant within one month from the issue of this order. 5. During the pendency of the appeals, an offer was made by the respondent bank to pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs.10,792.24/- each. Taking note of the aforesaid offer, the State Commission modified the order of the District Forum and directed thus: he appellants shall pay an amount of Rs.10,792.24/- to the respondent complainant towards refund of the accumulated interest amount on FDR alongwith interest @ 3.5% p.a. from 01.01.2005 to 25.05.2006 only if the pay order handed over to the respondent complainant had not been encashed by him and the pay order handed over to the respondent complainant by appellant/OP before the District Forum during the course of proceedings shall be treated as cancelled forthwith. b) Keeping in view the facts of the case, the compensation and litigation amount of Rs.25000/- awarded by the District Forum is reduced to Rs.3000/- and accordingly the appellant / OP shall pay an amount of Rs.3000/- to the respondent / complainant towards compensation for mental agony and harassment alongwith litigation cost. c) The appeal is disposed off in above terms, copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost as per law and case. File be consigned to record room. d) FDR if any deposited by the appellant be returned to the appellant as per rules. 6. The respondent bank has accepted the above noted order, so the order qua the bank has become final. The petitioners are aggrieved of the reduction of the compensation / litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-each awarded by the District Forum to Rs.3000/- each. 7. The petitioner has contended that the order of the State Commission reducing the compensation and litigation amount to a meagre sum of Rs.3000/- is arbitrary. It is argued that the State Commission while reducing the amount of compensation has failed to appreciate that the petitioners were compelled to file the consumer complaints because of unauthorised transfer of accrued interest on the FDRs to the respective saving account of the petitioners and also the unauthorized debit of the service charges in the respective saving bank accounts on the pretext that petitioners had failed to maintain the minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- in the respective account as per the norms of the bank. It is further contended that State Commission has failed to appreciate that because of the aforesaid act of the respondent, the petitioners had been forced into a protracted litigation of almost 9 years. During the said period, the petitioner has suffered expenses for travelling to the respective foras to attend the dates of hearings and also undergone harassment and suffering and that for the aforesaid mental harassment and agony, the compensation of Rs.3000/- is grossly insufficient. 8. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that the State Commission has rightly reduced the amount of compensation. 9. On perusal of record, we find merit in the contention of the petitioner. Undisputedly, the subject saving bank accounts were opened with zero balance by the petitioners in the year 1998. At that time, there was no rule of charging service charges from the account holder if he fail to maintain minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- in the saving bank account. Case of the respondent is that in April 2002, the respondent bank introduced the scheme which require the saving bank account holder to maintain minimum balance of Rs.10,000/-failing which the service charges were to be levied. Respondent has claimed that a general letter in this regard was sent to all the customers. The respondent, however, has failed to lead any evidence to prove that the change in the rules was intimated to the petitioners. Therefore, the respondent bank by levying service charges has committed an act amounting to deficiency in service. 10. From the record it is evident that this litigation started because of unfair and unauthorised act on the part of the respondent opposite party. The consumer complaints were filed in the year 2005. Thus, it is clear that because of the wrong act of the opposite party, the petitioners have been forced to undergo the rigours of a protracted litigation for 9 years before the District Forum, State Commission as also the National Commission. Obviously, the petitioners must have attended the proceedings before all the three foras and their visit to the foras must have entailed expenses. Even if the travelling expenses for attending the dates of hearings are taken into account, then also in all likelihood, the petitioners must have spent more than Rs.3000/- for attending the proceedings. Besides the expenses incurred, the petitioners have also suffered unnecessary harassment and mental agony due to protracted litigation, for which also they should be compensated. Taking the aforesaid aspects into account, we find that the compensation and litigation expenses awarded by the District Forum is more than reasonable. The State Commission in exercise of its appellate powers had no jurisdiction to arbitrarily reduce the compensation and litigation expenses to Rs.3000/- without assigning any justified reasons for the same. That being the case, the order of the State Commission reducing the amount of compensation and litigation expenses cannot be sustained. 11. We accordingly allow the revision petitions, set aside the order of the State Commission and direct the respondent opposite party to pay to the petitioners compensation as well as litigation expenses in terms of the respective orders of the District Forum. The revision petitions are disposed of accordingly.