Respondents/complainants Kusum Tandon and her husband Triloki Nath Tandon had deposited a sum of Rs.70,000/- in their joint names on 8.5.1998 with Sikkim Bank Ltd. (which has now been amalgamated with Union Bank of India, the petitioner herein) which was to carry interest at the rate of 14%.  On 15.5.1998 and 15.7.1998, Triloki Nath Tandon and Kusum Tandon had deposited two separate amounts of Rs.45,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively in their joint names.  The Sikkim Bank Ltd. went into liquidation.  Central Government, in exercise of its power, sanctioned a scheme for amalgamation of Sikkim Bank Ltd. with the petitioner bank, which was called the Sikkim Bank Ltd. amalgamtion with Union Bank of India Scheme 1998, which was made effective from 22.12.1999. 

          As only Rs.2,000/- were paid against each deposit and the rest of the money and interest was not paid, the respondents filed two separate complaints bearing Numbers 719 and 720 of 2000 before the District Forum, Janakpuri, New Delhi. 

          Stand taken by the petitioner before the District Forum was that the amount was paid to the respondents in terms of Section 17(1) of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC) Act.  That the payments were made to the respondents in accordance with the guidelines issued by DICGC.  As per these guidelines, the three accounts were required to be clubbed together.

          District Forum did not accept the contention of the petitioner and allowed the complaint, aggrieved against which, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed. 

Petitioner bank, being aggrieved, has filed the present Revision Petitions.

Complainants/respondents are not present despite service.  Ordered to be proceeded ex parte.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the sums of Rs.70,000/-, Rs.45,000/- and Rs.25,000/- deposited by the complainants/respondents have already been paid to the complainants/respondents by DICGC and, therefore, list between the parties does not survive but prays that the orders passed by the fora below be set aside as the same run counter to the Scheme framed by the Central Government. 

These Revision Petitions are dismissed as infructuous.  Order passed by the State Commission be not taken as a precedent for future reference.