IMPORTANT POINT
Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when statute so prescribes.

The present revision petition is filed against the order dated 28.06.2013 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 305/2010/1939. By way of the impugned order, the appeal preferred against the order dated 23.12.2009 passed by the Additional District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as “the District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 63/2006 was partly allowed and the order of the District Forum was modified.

2. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are that in pursuance to the advertisement inviting deposits, issued by the opposite parties in Sandesh Gujarati Newspaper on 03.12.2003, the complainant society deposited an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-, Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- on 04.03.2004, 16.07.2004 and 10.08.2004, respectively. The said deposits were to be invested as fixed deposits for a period of five years and the rate of interest was 6.50%. The deposits were accepted by the opposite parties, however, vide letter dated 05.08.2005, the complainant was informed that the deposits have been accepted owing to oversight/ mistake as a society was not entitled to invest in this scheme and asked the complainant to withdraw the same. On 22.08.2005, the complainant withdrew the deposits with objections, but the opposite parties did not pay the interest amount on the said deposits. As per the complainant, the total amount of interest at the agreed rate comes to Rs. 84,156. Aggrieved by the acts of the opposite parties, the complainant was constrained to file consumer complaint before the District Forum.

3. Upon service of notice, the opposite parties contested the claim of the complainant on the ground that the accounts were opened in contravention of the rules and were closed on 24.08.2005. It was contended that as per the statutory rules governing the deposits made with the opposite parties, the complainant had no right to claim interest for deposits made in contravention of the rules. On these grounds, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the District Forum vide order dated 23.12.2009 held as follows:—

“The complaint is partly allowed. The opponents are directed to pay Rs. 84, 156.00 (Rupees eighty four thousand one hundred fifty six only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 16.01.2006 till realization. The opponents are further directed to pay Rs. 3,000.00 (rupees three thousand only) for mental agony and inconvenience and another sum of Rs. 1,500.00 (rupees one thousand five hundred only) towards the cost of this proceedings. This award be compiled with within one month from the date of receipt of copy hereof”.

4. Aggrieved by the above order, opposite party No.1 preferred an appeal before the State Commission. Vide its order dated 28.06.2013, the State Commission partly allowed the appeal and modified the rate of interest to 6% p.a. from 9% p.a. awarded by the District Forum.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission petitioner/opposite party No.1 has approached this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lower fora erred in partly allowing the complaint and awarding interest amount to the respondent No.1. The learned counsel further submitted that since the deposits in the case on hand relate to Post Office Time Deposit Rules, 1981 and Rule 4(6) of these Rules is squarely applicable. The reading of Rule 4(6) makes it clear that if any account is found to have been opened in contravention of any Rule, the relevant Head Savings Bank may, at any time, cause the account to be closed and the deposits made be refunded to the depositor without interest.

8. To buttress his argument, the learned Counsel placed reliance on a ruling in Ar