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.