ORDER (Per: Mr. C.C. Pant, Member): Uttarakhand Forest Hospital Trust, Haldwani (hereinafter referred as “complainant”) has filed this consumer complaint through its Secretary Sh. Vijay Kumar under Section 18 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging therein deficiency in service on the part of Bank of Baroda, Head office at Baroda, Branch office-Badripura, Haldwani, District Nainital (hereinafter referred as “opposite party”). The complainant has prayed for the following reliefs:- (a) The opposite party be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 46,04,657/- along with an interest of Rs. 45,69,534/- on Rs. 46,04,657/-. (b) The opposite party be directed to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the above amount. (c) The opposite party be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- for mental pain and agony. (d) The opposite party be directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards cost of the consumer complaint. (e) Any other relief that this Commission thinks fit to be granted under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant is a charitable, non-profit making organization, which is backed by the State Government and has been created for providing medical services at reasonable rates and also to provide concessional & free treatment to poor patients. The major source of revenue generation for the organization is from interest income coming by way of investing the surplus grants / donations given by the State Government and other sources. The complainant had opened an account with the opposite party and had deposited its surplus funds with the bank in the form of term deposits since 1989. The opposite party issued a letter dated 27.10.1995 to the complainant, wherein the bank had made commitment towards safeguarding the complainant’s interest by ensuring maximum interest on all its term deposits lying with the bank. The opposite party had paid quarterly compounded interest on some FDRs of the complainant, which had matured during the period from 1995 to 1998. However, in 1999, while making an inquiry about the renewal proceeds of the term deposit No. 408691 dated 29.01.1995, which was sent to the bank for renewal on 23.03.1999, the complainant found that the opposite party had given simple interest on the said FDR for the entire period of investment. However, in 1999, while making an inquiry about the renewal proceeds of the term deposit No. 408691 dated 29.01.1995, which was sent to the bank for renewal on 23.03.1999, the complainant found that the opposite party had given simple interest on the said FDR for the entire period of investment. When the complainant asked its reason, the opposite party informed that the said deposits were in the form of SDR and quarterly compounded interest could not be given on such deposits. As a result, the complainant suffered a huge loss of Rs. 46,04,657/- of interest, which was not paid by the bank on its term deposits as well as Rs. 14,94,579/- accrued towards interest on the said unpaid amount as on 31.07.2001. After that, the complainant had lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman on 16.04.2001 and the Ombudsman had decided the same on 04.06.2003, but the opposite party did not comply with the order of the Ombudsman. The complainant made a representation to the bank to make the loss good, but to no avail. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before this Commission on 04.11.2004 against the opposite party, alleging gross deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and praying for the reliefs, as stated above. 3. The opposite party filed its written statement which is at Paper Nos. 107 to 123. The opposite party has denied all the allegations made against it by the complainant and has stated that the interest has been paid as per the Bank’s norms, Rules and Regulations. The opposite party has made counter allegations against the complainant that either with the connivance of the complainant with the employees of the Bank or due to non-awareness of the employees of the Bank regarding Rules and Regulations, the complainant has been paid excess interest on some of its deposits. 4. The complainant has adduced in evidence details of its deposits with the Bank, showing therein the amount of interest payable and actually paid by the Bank and also the copies of the FDRs/SDRs and correspondence made with the opposite party (Paper Nos. 4 to 32). The complainant has also adduced evidence in the form of an affidavit dated 25.08.2005 of Sh. Monish Mullick, Secretary of the complainant-organization along with annexures (Paper Nos. 126 to 182). 4 to 32). The complainant has also adduced evidence in the form of an affidavit dated 25.08.2005 of Sh. Monish Mullick, Secretary of the complainant-organization along with annexures (Paper Nos. 126 to 182). The opposite party has filed the evidence in the form of an affidavit dated 24.04.2007 of Sh. S.K. Arora, Senior Officer of the opposite party (Paper Nos. 202-219). The complainant has filed rejoinder affidavit dated 29.02.2008 of Sh. Monish Mullick, Secretary of the complainant-organization, which is at Paper Nos. 238 to 244. 5. Learned counsel for both the parties have filed their written arguments and have also placed oral arguments. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had submitted all the details of its deposits and had asked the opposite party to pay the interest due on these deposits on quarterly compounding basis, which the opposite party had done in some other FDRs, but the opposite party turned down the request of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Banking Ombudsman. The Banking Ombudsman passed the order on 04.06.2003, but the opposite party did not comply with the said order. This led the complainant to file the consumer complaint before this Commission on 04.11.2004, which is well in time. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the cause of action for filing the consumer complaint had arisen in the year 1999 and, therefore, the consumer complaint is barred by time. He also submitted that the Banking Ombudsman has jurisdiction to settle the dispute, which involve amounts upto Rs. 10.00 lacs and, therefore, the Banking Ombudsman’s order is not binding on it. Further, the Bank had also received direction from RBI (Reserve Bank of India) that the said order need not be complied with. The learned counsel further submitted that the interest has been paid as per norms, Rules and Regulations of the Bank. It appears that the employees of the Bank were not fully aware with the latest circulars and Rules of the Bank and, therefore, they had paid an amount of Rs. 96,24,640/- to the complainant in excess, which is recoverable from them. 8. We went through all the details submitted by the complainant. So far as the issue of limitation is concerned, the dispute was under consideration of the Banking Ombudsman, who passed its order on 04.06.2003. 96,24,640/- to the complainant in excess, which is recoverable from them. 8. We went through all the details submitted by the complainant. So far as the issue of limitation is concerned, the dispute was under consideration of the Banking Ombudsman, who passed its order on 04.06.2003. Therefore, the complainant had no reason to file a consumer complaint simultaneously before this Commission. The learned counsel for the opposite party, while challenging the maintainability of the consumer complaint, has relied upon Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s decision and Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s decision in the case of Zamshed Alam Khan vs. Regency Industries Ltd. & Ors.; III (2001) CPJ 389 and Kamlesh Kumari & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.; II (2001) CPJ 427, but the facts of these cases are quite different from the facts of the instant case. In these cases, the matter was not pending before the Banking Ombudsman. In the light of a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSG Industrial Institute; (1995) 3 SCC 583 , the period spent in Banking Ombudsman’s proceedings shall be excluded for the purpose of counting the limitation period. Therefore, the consumer complaint is not liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. 9. As per details submitted by the complainant, Uttaranchal Forest Hospital Trust had deposited Rs. 861.70 lacs with Bank of Baroda, Badripura, Haldwani Branch in 32 FD a/cs on different dates. All the FDRs were said to have been deposited under quarterly compounding scheme. It is alleged by the complainant that the bank has paid simple rate of interest on all these FDRs, instead of quarterly compounding saying that these FDRs were under SDR, on which interest can be paid at simple rate only. Till November, 1998, the Bank used to compound the interest on quarterly basis on such Deposits. As such, they have suffered a loss of Rs. 60,37,136/-. The opposite party’s reply is that these deposits were actually open date. The period of deposits and rate of interest were being filled in on these deposit receipts as well as in the bank’s book also at the time of withdrawal of it. Trust had made these deposits without mentioning any period, nor had given any instruction to Bank as to how payment of interest will be taken. The period of deposits and rate of interest were being filled in on these deposit receipts as well as in the bank’s book also at the time of withdrawal of it. Trust had made these deposits without mentioning any period, nor had given any instruction to Bank as to how payment of interest will be taken. The trust official, somehow, become able to convince the bank officials to issue open dated FD in contravention of RBI Rules as well as Bank Rules. 10. A perusal of the record reveals that both the parties had mutually agreed on certain issues, which were under consideration before the Banking Ombudsman. For example; both the parties had agreed before the Banking Ombudsman that in case of deposits beyond 180 days, interest will be paid at the rate prevailing on the date of issue and in case of FDs for more than 180 days, it should be compounded quarterly. A perusal of the Banking Ombudsman’s order reveals that the Ombudsman had observed that there is omission on the part of both, e.g., not giving specific instruction by the Trust while investing funds with the bank. Similarly, whenever request was received by the bank, they should have taken application form/letter, clearly stating the period for which the deposit was to be kept and rate of interest at which it was invested and it was admitted by both the parties. The Banking Ombudsman categorized the FDRs in the following four categories:- Category I FD Receipts Where neither interest rate nor period of No. 858997 deposit is mentioned. for Rs. 50.00 lac Category II FD Receipts Where interest rate is mentioned but No. 37736 for maturity period is not mentioned. Rs. 2.20 crore Category III FD Receipts Which was originally issued by the bank No.408691 for at 9% rate of interest, but subsequently Rs. 1.75 crore the rate was changed to 10% without authentication. Category IV FD Receipts Initially issued for 5 years, but w.e.f. (IPRQs) 01.10.99, Bank has changed the interest rate after change in mode of payment of interest. 11. Keeping in view the method of computation normally followed by the bank in such cases, the Banking Ombudsman suggested the following methods to sort out the issue. Category No. (I) The interest rate applicable on the date of deposit for the period upto date of payment with quarterly compounding. 11. Keeping in view the method of computation normally followed by the bank in such cases, the Banking Ombudsman suggested the following methods to sort out the issue. Category No. (I) The interest rate applicable on the date of deposit for the period upto date of payment with quarterly compounding. Category No. (II) The indicated rate of interest to be paid for the period to which this rate corresponds. For the remaining period, interest @ prevalent on the date of maturity of such period be paid upto the date of payment of the FD. Category No. (III) In respect of FD of Rs. 1.75 crore No. 408691, 9% interest which was originally mentioned on the FDR be paid from the date of initial deposit for 1 year and thereafter at the rate prevailing on the date of maturity (28.01.96) upto the date of payment. Category No. (IV) The difference between simple & compound interest will be paid upto 30th September 1999. For the remaining period interest will be paid at the rate on the date of issue of the FD. (Rate will not be reduced) 12. The opposite party did not comply the said directions issued by the Banking Ombudsman on the ground that it was beyond its jurisdiction, but the opposite party has not averred anywhere that the parties had not mutually agreed on the issues, as indicated by the Banking Ombudsman. Therefore, we are of the view that the suggested methods are the only solution to settle the dispute.