ORDER

IA No. 6740 of 2026 (Delay Condonation Application)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank and the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant.

The affidavit has been filed in terms of the order dated 30.03.2026.

The delay is very nominal of only one day as reported by the Office. We find the cause shown to be sufficient. The delay condonation application is accordingly allowed and the revision petition is treated to have been filed within time.

Revision Petition

The Bank has come up in this revision petition questioning the order dated 22.05.2007 of the DCDRC Solapur, Maharashtra (for short the District Commission) under Consumer Complaint No. 450 of 2006, as confirmed by the SCDRC Maharashtra (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No.796 of 2007 vide order dated 29.05.2025, whereby the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant in respect of an alleged deficiency of non-payment of differential amount of interest to the tune of Rs.10,06,394/- has been allowed.

A fixed deposit in the joint name of the respondent/complainant and the All India Council for Technical Education (for short the AICTE), Western Regional Office, Mumbai for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- was opened as a requirement for the purpose of starting an Engineering College by the respondent/complainant at Gopalpur. The fixed deposit was to be for a period of 10 years, yielding an annual interest rate of 15% and the quarterly interest to be credited in the account of the respondent/complainant.

The fixed deposit was made on 19.06.1997 and the first quarterly interest up-to 30.09.1997 was credited in the account of the respondent/complainant.

However, the AICTE dispatched a letter on 01.12.1997 to the Bank instructing it not to allow the institution to operate the fixed deposit account or withdraw the interest with other instructions as well. The letter is extracted hereunder:

However, according to the respondent/complainant, this accrual of interest was not credited up-to 30.09.1999 for almost a period of 02 years. Admittedly, the Bank credited only the interest on 29.05.2002 along with the fixed deposit receipt. However, the interest that was payable every quarter during the period from 01.10.1997 to 30.09.1999 could not be invested as a result whereof there was a loss of interest on the said amount which the Bank claimed to have deposited on 29.10.2002. It is this dispute that was raised through the complaint filed in the year 2006.

Admittedly, the fixed deposit was for a period of 10 years and was therefore yet to mature in the year 2007. Consequently, the complaint came to be filed prior to the date of maturity alleging the shortfall in the amount that was payable to the respondent/complainant.

The complaint was allowed by the District Commission holding the Bank to be deficient for not having deposited the amount or invested it after crediting on quarterly basis and held that a sum of Rs.10,06,394/- was the loss suffered which deserved to be compensated to the respondent/complainant. The complaint was accordingly allowed, whereafter the Bank preferred Appeal No. 796 of 2007 before the State Commission. The State Commission also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 29.05.2025 against which the present revision petition has been filed by the Bank.

Learned counsel for the Bank has urged that there was no obligation on the Bank to make any such payment as claimed by the respondent/complainant, inasmuch as the letter dated 01.12.1997 had clearly instructed not to credit the amount in the account of the respondent/complainant or allow it to be withdrawn by it. It is this instruction which was followed by the Bank and therefore there was no deficiency, inasmuch as the instruction was by the AICTE who was a joint account holder of the fixed deposit.

It is correct that the fixed deposit receipt clearly demonstrates that it was a joint account fixed deposit, but the letter dated 01.12.1997 was in the shape of a temporary instruction to prevent