Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 395
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
RAMCHARAN SAHU S/o. S/o Shri Sarju Sahu – Appellant
Versus
BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA & 2 ORS. – Respondent
NC/RP/1186/2012
Interest on bonds is payable as per the terms and conditions of the bond, not as claimed by the complainant. Half-yearly interest payments were made, and the only deficiency was a delayed payment, for which simple interest was correctly awarded.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g) (deficiency in service), 12 and 21 - Revision petition against order of State Commission - Terms and conditions of bonds - Clause 6, 7 and 8 of the bond - Interest payable half-yearly at 3% over bank's maximum term deposit rate with minimum coupon rate of 12% per annum - Face value redeemed at par at expiry of 10 years or with premium on early redemption (5% at end of 5th year, 3% at end of 7th year, 1% at end of 9th year). (Paras 2, 6)
(B) Revision Petition - Scope - Factual findings of State Commission that half-yearly interest payments were made and that complainant suppressed this fact and gave wrong calculation of interest, not effectively challenged - Such findings are binding. (Paras 6)
(C) Evidence - Uncontroverted affidavit - When bank filed an affidavit with a table of calculation and complainant filed no counter affidavit despite opportunity, the facts stated therein are considered uncontested. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The complainant purchased 90 bonds, each of face value of Rs.1,000/-, from the bank. The bonds were for a 10-year period with interest payable half-yearly at a floating rate (minimum 12% per annum). The complainant sought interest on the bonds, including compound interest, which was calculated by the District Forum at Rs.2,03,528/-. The State Commission, on appeal by the bank, modified this order, finding that the bank had made regular half-yearly interest payments and that the complainant had suppressed this fact. The State Commission allowed only interest on a delayed payment of Rs.80,300/- for 78 bonds from 27.07.2000 to 02.12.2005 at 6% per annum. The complainant filed a revision petition before the National Commission.
Findings of Court:
The National Commission agreed with the State Commission. It held that the calculation of interest claimed in the complaint was misconceived and wrong. The State Commission’s factual finding that half-yearly interest was paid and the complainant had suppressed this fact was not effectively challenged. The bank’s uncontroverted affidavit confirmed that all payments were made in accordance with clauses 6, 7, and 8 of the bond. The only deficiency found was the delayed payment of Rs.80,300/-, for which interest was correctly awarded. No further interference was warranted.
Issues: The main issue was the correctness of the State Commission’s order modifying the District Forum’s award and whether the complainant was entitled to the interest as claimed, including compound interest on the bonds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that where the complainant failed to challenge the factual finding that half-yearly interest was paid and suppressed this fact, and where the bank’s calculation in an uncontroverted affidavit confirmed payment in accordance with bond terms, no deficiency in service beyond the delayed payment was established. The State Commission’s order was upheld. Result : Revision petition dismissed. Parties: Complainant (Petitioner), Bank (Respondent). Dissenting opinions or alternative viewpoints: None present. Keywords: Bonds, deficiency in service, revision petition, State Commission, District Forum.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the bond purchase and previous proceedings (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. state commission's findings on bond terms and bank's compliance (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. bank's affidavit on calculations and petitioner's lack of rebuttal (Para 5) |
| 4. court's agreement with state commission and dismissal of petition (Para 6) |
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONHDCF NEW DELHI JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON: 08.04.2026 JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 20.04.2026 REVISION PETITION NO. 1186 OF 2012 (A gainst the O rder dated 21.12.2011 in A ppeal N o. 513/2011 of the S tate C onsum er D isputes R edressal C om m ission C hhattisgarh)
R am charan S ahu, S /o S hri S arju S ahu, R /o V illage B huvaneshw arpur, PO Petitioner R am anujnagar, Tehsil S urajpur, D istrict - S arguja (C .G .)
Versus
1.
B ranch M anager, S tate B ank of India, B ranch S urajpur, D istrict - S arguja (C .G .).
2. S tate B ank of India, B ranch A m bikapur, D istrict S arguja (C .G .).
Respondents ......
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER For the P etitioner : M r. R .K. B haw nani, A dvocate For the Respondents : M r. C handrachur B hattacharya, M r. M anoj D ubey, A dvocates
ORDER
PER BHARATKUMAR PANDYA. MEMBER
1.
This revision petition filed by the original com plainant is against the order of the C hhattisgarh S tate C om m ission dated 21.12.2011 in appeal no. 513 of 2011. The appeal before the S tate C om m ission w as filed by the respondent bank i.e. S tate B ank of India against the order of the D istrict Forum , A m bikapur dated 24.08.2011 in com plaint no. 226 of 2006. The com plainant M r. R am charan S ahu had purchased total 90 bonds, each w ith face value of R s.1,000/-, from the O P bank. A s per the com plainant, he earlier had filed a com plaint no. 102/2003 before the D istrict Forum and had claim ed value of the bond along w ith the interest at 12% p.a., w hich w as stated to be the schem e of the bond. It w as further the case of the com plainant that during pendency of the said case, the respondent bank i.e. SBI paid an am ount of R s.78,000/- tow ards the value of the bonds, and the D istrict Forum in its order dated 18.04.2006 directed the com plainant to subm it his claim w ith the bank for further m aturity am ount and interest. The bank, as per the com plainant, had not paid the interest for the period from date of paym ent till 24.01.2004 on such am ount of R s.78,000/-. S uch non-paym ent by the bank led to further com plaint w hich has resulted into the present revision petition. In P ara 8 of the com plaint, the interest at the rate of 15% on the am ount of 90 bonds has been calculated at R s.6,07,500/- less R s.78,000/- i.e. R s.5,29,000/- and has been claim ed along w ith the com pensation and cost of R s.7,000/-. The com plaint w as resisted by the bank and in reply to Para 8 of the com plaint, it w as categorically m entioned that the sam e w as denied and also that the calculation of interest of R s.6,750/- per bond totalling to R s.6,07,500/- for 90 bonds is patently and intentionally w rong in as m uch as the interest at the rate of 15% per bond per annum w ould only be R s.75/- for six m onths and R s.150 for one year and therefore the annual interest for 90 bonds cannot be m ore than R s.13,500/-. The D istrict Forum , after considering the rival contentions and the m aterial on record, how ever, calculates the interest including the com pound interest in P ara 13 to 19 of its order and in Para 19 com es to the conclusion that the total am ount of interest that w as required to be paid by the bank and not paid is R s.2,03,528/-. The follow ing relevant paragraphs are reproduced below :
18. It is pertinent to mentioned that complainant has purchased total 90 bonds from the OPs out of which the amount of two bonds have been received and amount of Rs. 78,OOOA of 78 bonds and bonus of Rs. 2340/* total of Rs. 80,340/* has been paid, in this condition the price of 10 bonds Rs. 1000/- per bonds
