Complainant/petitioner, after retirement, opened two Senior Citizen Saving Scheme Accounts with the respondent, i.e., A/C No.6660275 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and A/C No.6660447 for a sum of Rs.1 Lac on 01.12.2004 and 14.6.2005 respectively. On an
-2- audit objection, the respondent wrote a letter which was received by the petitioner on 08.12.2007, wherein it was mentioned that she had not submitted the evidence as to the amount of retirement benefit she had received and she was asked to immediately submit such evidence. It was also stated that if the retirement benefits were not invested within one month of retirement, then such investment would be treated as illegal and that she would not be entitled to any interest on such invested amount. According to the petitioner, the respondent never told her about these conditions at the time of opening the Accounts; that she supplied all the required documents/evidence at the time of opening of the accounts and the respondent opened the Accounts. However, after a lapse of three years, on an audit objection, respondents wrote the letter which was received by her on 08.12.2007. Petitioner sent a notice dated 14.12.2007. The respondents deducted a sum of Rs.59,077/- which was paid to the petitioner by way of interest and also did not pay interest of Rs.9,000/-. According to the respondents, the Accounts were opened against the rules of Senor Citizen Saving Scheme, 2004 framed by -3- the Finance Department and, therefore, they had deducted the above amount and did not pay interest which accrued later on. Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the District Forum which partly allowed the same and directed the respondents to pay Rs.59,077/- to the petitioner within two months from the date of order failing which the amount was to carry interest at the rate of 9%. Rs.3,000/- were awarded as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2000/- as costs. Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission, which allowed the same and set aside the order of the District Forum. In the present case, the fault lay with the petitioner as well as with the respondents. Respondents opened the Accounts without verifying the fact as to whether the amount deposited by the petitioner was as per Senior Citizen Saving Scheme 2004 framed by the Ministry of Finance. Since the fault lay with both the parties, petitioner alone cannot be held responsible for the same. Limited Notice was issued to the respondent to show cause as to why the petitioner be not awarded interest at the rate of 6% on the -4- deposited amount instead of agreed rate of interest to compensate the petitioner as the amount remained with the respondents during all these years. In “Revision Petition No.2651 of 2007 The Chief Post Master, Chennai & Anr vs. Shri Chuda Milk Products Co-op. Organisation Ltd. (decided on 23.10.2009)” we had directed counsel for the Post Office to seek instructions from the Ministry of Finance to pay the complainants some interest and counsel for the Post Office stated that he had received a communication whereby the Ministry of Finance vide letter No.109-06/07-SBPG dated 12.10.09 had agreed to pay Post Office Saving Bank rate of interest on the face value of Kisan Vikas Patras from the date of deposit till the date of payment. Keeping in view the earlier precedent wherein Ministry of Finance had agreed to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of realization, we direct the respondent to pay interest on the face value of the deposited amount @ 6% p.a., instead of agreed rate of interest, from the date of deposit till realization to compensate the petitioner. -5- Respondent is directed to pay the amount within 8 weeks (eight weeks) from today, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to get the order executed under Section 25/27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. With these observations, revision petition stands disposed of. | 
