Order

Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3. The case of complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant was working as Executive Director of Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd.,Kolkata from 30.09.1975 to 15.01.1997. Before joining to this work he was working as Chief General Manager of Neelachal Espat Nigam Ltd. It is alleged inter-alia that after the joining in Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., the complainant received his provident fund deposit for Rs.8,71,845.23 from the employeer. Then he contacted OP No.2 to deposit the amount as the complainant had opened the accounts with the branch of OP No.2. As per the advise of the present appellant he deposited the entire amount in public provident fund account on 01.06.1998. Thereafter the complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- in the said account on 06.11.1998 as per Annexure-1. The OP No.-Bank retained the deposits till 4.9.2001 but thereafter the OP-Bank informed in writing that the complainant can deposit only upto Rs.60,000/- in the financial year in such public provident fund account. Therefore, the OP-Bank returned Rs.8,31,845/- on 23.08.2001. The complainant was intimated by said OP that the interest on the said account would be maintained only as per Annexure-2 not beyond that. The complainant opposed to such proposal and claimed interest on the entire amount. Thereafter the OP wrote letter to the complainant stating that Rs.3,11,329/- is the interest in the public provident fund account of the complainant. But the complainant alleged that the amount of interest would be Rs.3.5 lakhs under Annexure-3. Therefore, the complainant approached OP-Bank who allowed interest at the rate applicable to fixed deposit but not for public provident fund account. Against that decision, the complaint was filed.

4. The OP filed written version stating that the deposit is not adjustable on the entire amount because of the provision of the limit of public provident fund upto Rs.60,000/- and that is why calculated interest at the rate applicable to Fixed deposit for Rs.60,000/- but not for rest of the amount. Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on their part.

5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-

Xxxx xxxx xxxx “ In the result, the complaint is allowed exparte against the OP No.2. The OP No.2 is directed to pay Rs.4,23,407/- to the complainant. The litigation cost is assessed at Rs.2000/-. The entire amount of Rs.4,25,407/- be paid to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order, failing which the Bank(OP No.2) shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the complainant till the date of payment.”

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has passed order without going through the written version and the facts of the case. According to him the entire order is illegal and improper because on the same issue he has challenged the matter before the Hon’ble High Court vide Writ Petition No.3528/2004 and the Hon’ble High Court have passed the order on dtd.22.02.2018 and accordingly they have complied the order of the Hon’ble High Court. Accordingly the appeal should be disposed of. He also submitted that they have obeyed order of Hon’ble High Court by crediting Rs.3,08,493/- to the account of complainant.

7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.

8. It is admitted fact that complainant has deposited Rs.8,31,845/- in provident fund account wit OP-Bank but bank only gave interest at the rate of public provident fund for Rs.60,000/- but not for rest of account. Matter was challenged before Ombudsman of bank and he confirmed the