Not fully contended with the order dated 5th February, 2008 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (For short ‘the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 500/2007, the original complainants in the complaint filed before the District Forum, have filed the present proceedings purportedly under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (For short ‘the Act’). The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by the present petitioners against the order dated 29-01-2007 passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Ujjain in complaint case no. 202/2006, by which order the said District Forum had dismissed the complaint filed by the present petitioners. In appeal, the State Commission has set aside the findings and order passed by the District Forum and has partly allowed the complaint and directed the respondent bank to pay a compensation of Rs.8,000/- besides Rs.2,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Hence this petition. 2. The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint are amply noted in the orders passed by the Fora below and need no repetition in detail, at our end. Petitioners filed complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of respondent bank with the averments and allegations that petitioner no. 1, an NRI along his father, petitioner no. 2 had deposited a sum of Rs.1,69,000/- under the NRNR Scheme of the respondent bank and got prepared FDR for a period of 60 months at the interest rate of 10% p.a. At the time of maturity of the said FDR, the petitioner no. 2 approached the respondent bank to collect the maturity amount, but to his surprise he was informed that the FDR had been renewed for 36 months w.e.f. 26-06-2004 at a reduced interest @ 3.5% p.a. in accordance with the RBI circular. The respondent denied any deficiency in service and maintained that the action taken by them was strictly in terms of the above referred RBI circular. 4. We have heard Mr. Alok Bhachawat, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Anil Kr. Tiwari, counsel representing the respondent bank and have considered their submissions. Before adverting to the respective pleas put forth on behalf of the parties, we may at once note that though the District Forum found no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent-bank and had dismissed the complaint, still the State Commission on an analysis of all the relevant facts and circumstances and in particular the stipulations contended in the RBI circular dated 04-03-2001 held the respondent bank deficient in service by observing as under:-- “It is a clear case of deficiency on the part of the respondent bank. The RBI circular specifying that the maximum period for NRNR deposits was to be 3 years, was issued in the year 2000, yet the FDR was accepted by the bank in 2001 for a period of 5 years. Even assuming it was a clerical error, we are unable to understand why the appellants were not informed of this error, when it came to the notice of the Bank. Had they been informed, they could have, if they so desired, withdrawn the amount and deposited elsewhere. Further, the bank renewed the FDR without giving any information. When the FDR was presented for payment of the maturity amount on 26-06-2006, not only was the amount not returned but an endorsement for renewal was made for 3 years at 3.5% interest, from 26-06-2004 to 26-06-2007. The RBI circular, dated 04-03-2001, directs all banks to discontinue NRNR account schemes wef April 1, 2002. Clause 2 (b) of the circular reads – “The existing accounts under NRNR account scheme may be continued only upto the date of maturity. The maturity proceeds of the deposits under NRNR account Scheme shall be credited to the account holder’s Non-Resident (External,) Rupee Account (NRE account), after giving notice to the account holder. For this purpose, the authorised dealers and authorised banks may give a notice to the accountholder that the maturity proceeds shall be credited to his NRE accounts. The accountholders may choose to credit the maturity proceeds to his NBRE term deposit account. The authorised dealers or authorised banks may also permit the accountholder, on his request, to credit the maturity proceeds to his NRO account. In case no reply is received from the accountholder, the maturity proceeds of deposits under NRNR account scheme may be credited to his NRE account. (Emphasis supplied) In the instant case, no notice was given to the account holder, depriving him of exercising his options. We can imagine the plight of appellant no. 2, a senior citizen, who went with the expectation of receiving the full maturity amount. It is true that interest on the deposit cannot be paid beyond the period specified by RBI, but the fact remains that in not informing the appellant and keeping quiet for 2 years the respondent bank was grossly deficient in their services, causing the appellant unnecessary mental agony and harassment.” 5. It is pertinent to note that the respondent bank has not challenged the said findings of the State Commission by filing any revision, etc. and therefore, the respondent bank will be deemed to have accepted the said findings in regard to the deficiency in service on its part, as recorded by the State Commission. Even otherwise, the deficiency in service on the part of respondent bank is writ large. To begin with, the respondent bank had acted contrary to the RBI instructions by issuing FDR in NRNR account scheme for a period of 6 months as against the maximum prescribed period of 3 years (36 months). This mistake is admitted by the bank itself. Thereafter before the maturity period was to reach, as per the RBI circular dated 04-03-2002, no notice was given to the account holder (petitioners) that the maturity proceeds shall be credited to their NRE account and giving any option to the petitioners to choose either for crediting the maturity proceeds to their NBRE saving bank account or current account or open a fresh NRE term deposit account. Without issuing any notice, respondent bank choose a wholly unauthorised/illegal procedure of transferring the maturity amount to some other kind of account, which carried interest @ 3.5% only as against the interest rate of 10%, which has caused financial loss to the petitioners. Not only this, even after filing of the present complaint, the respondents have not disbursed the deposited amount, which was standing to the credit of the petitioners and the amount continues to remain with the respondent bank at interest @ 3.5% p.a. In our view, in absence of any notice and any instructions from the petitioners, the respondent bank could have well put the maturity proceeds which had become due after 36 months i.e. on 26-06-04 in a fresh NRE term deposit for the same period. In no case they should have transferred the maturity proceeds to an account bearing rate of interest, which was almost 1/3rd of the agreed rate of interest on the original FDR. The above act of omission and commission should be viewed as grave acts of carelessness and negligence tentamounting to deficiency in service. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the face of the deficiency in service of the above nature and magnitude, a paltry compensation of Rs.8,000/- awarded by the State Commission is not at all commensurate with the loss and injury suffered by the petitioners. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent bank supports the order passed by the State Commission. 7. Having considered the respective submissions, we find force in the contention put forth on behalf of the petitioners. In our view, the compensation of Rs.8,000/- awarded by the State Commission cannot by any standard be said to be commensurate with the loss and injury suffered by the petitioners on account of the above noted deficiency in service. The compensation talked off in Section 14 of the Act is not only to compensate consumer for the monetary loss or injury suffered by him, but encompasses within its ambit compensation for any harassment, mental torture and any injustice done to the consumer. In this view, we are fortified by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh [(2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 65], wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:- “The word ‘compensation’ is again of very wide connotation. It has not been defined in the Act. According to dictionary it means, ‘compensating or being compensated; thing given as recompense;. In legal sense it may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. Therefore, when the Commission has been vested with the jurisdiction to award value of goods or service and compensation it has to be construed widely enabling the Commission to determine compensation for any loss or damage suffered by a consumer which in law is otherwise included in wide meaning of compensation. The provision in our opinion enables a consumer to claim and empowers the Commission to redress any injustice done to him. The Commission or the Forum in the Act is thus entitled to award not only value of the goods or services but also compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him.” 8. Going by the said decision and the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case that the petitioner no. 1 is an NRI and his old father had reposed faith in the respondent bank and in the Indian Banking System by depositing the foreign currency with the hope that the agreement in accordance with the payment on the FDR shall be honored by the respondent, which trust/agreement was betrayed by the respondent bank in the above manner, the petitioners must have faced immense mental torture due to anxiousness about their money deposited with the respondent bank. In our view, the petitioners are certainly entitled to a better treatment and higher compensation in the present case. 9. In view of the above discussion, we consider it appropriate to direct the respondent bank to refund the original deposit FD amount of Rs.1,69,000/- to the petitioners along with interest @ 10% p.a. w.e.f the date of deposit i.e. 26-06-2001 to 26-06-2006 (For a period of 60 months) and thereafter to pay interest on the said maturity amount @ 7½% p.a. till the date of refund. That apart we also consider it appropriate to award a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioners. 10. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed and the order passed by the State Commission is modified in the above manner. The amount, in terms of the above directions, shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioners within a period of 4 weeks from the date of this order, failing which the entire awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of default. The petitioners are also awarded cost of Rs.20,000/- throughout the proceedings before the three Fora.