JUDGMENT : Dr. D.P.Choudhury, J. Challenge has been made to the award dated 30.07.2002 passed by the Banking Ombudsman, opposite party no.1, vide Annexure-4 in directing the State Bank of India-petitioner to pay simple interest prevailing on FD rate to both the deposits made by the opposite party no.2, i.e, Rs.8,11,845.23 and Rs.20,000.00 except the balance of Rs.60,000.00 earning interest in the PPF Scheme. 2. The adumbrated facts leading to the case of writ petition are that the petitioner, being State Bank of India, IDCO Tower Branch, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter called as “the SBI”) was working as facilitator for promoting Public Provident Fund Scheme (in short “the PPF Scheme”) floated under Public Provident Fund Act, 1968 (hereinafter called as “the Act, 1968”) 3. The opposite party no.2, after receiving the final withdrawal of the provident fund money from his ex-employer and, being interested to deposit the same under the PPF Scheme, deposited Rs.8,71,845.23 and Rs.20,000.00 on 1.6.1998 and 6.11.1998 respectively in his PPF Account No.703 after having consultation with the Chief General Manager of SBI. On 28.08.2001, an amount of Rs.8,31,845.23 was returned by the SBI to the opposite party no.2 in shape of banker’s cheque on the ground that the amount deposited by the opposite party no.2 in his PPF account is excess over the limit of Rs.60,000/ during the year. It is also mentioned by the SBI that the opposite party no.2 is not entitled to the interest paid on this excess amount and the excess interest paid into his account would be adjusted. 4. The opposite party no.2 filed a complaint before the learned Banking Ombudsman, opposite party no.1. Learned Ombudsman after hearing both parties, passed the impugned award on 30.07.2002 to the effect that the SBI shall pay interest at the then prevailing FD rate (on simple basis) applicable to both the excess deposits, i.e., Rs.8,11,845.23 deposited on 01.06.1998 and Rs.20,000/-deposited on 06.11.1998. Against such award, the instant writ petition has been filed by the SBI on various grounds. 5. SUBMISSIONS Mr.P.V. Balakrishna, learned counsel for the SBI submitted that the Government of India has promulgated Public Provident Fund Act, 1968 (hereinafter called “the Act, 1968”) wherein it has been provided that any individual can open an account under PPF scheme by depositing an amount not less than Rs.100/-and not more than Rs.60,000/-in a year. 5. SUBMISSIONS Mr.P.V. Balakrishna, learned counsel for the SBI submitted that the Government of India has promulgated Public Provident Fund Act, 1968 (hereinafter called “the Act, 1968”) wherein it has been provided that any individual can open an account under PPF scheme by depositing an amount not less than Rs.100/-and not more than Rs.60,000/-in a year. The SBI has been nominated to work as an agent for promoting such Scheme. 6. Mr.Balakrishna, learned counsel for the SBI submitted that the opposite party no.2 has got PPF Account No.703 and deposited a sum of Rs.8,71,845.23 on 01.06.1998 and Rs.20,000/-on 06.11.1998. The said amount was transferred by the SBI to Nagpur for process but in the year 2001, it is found that excess amount has been deposited by the opposite party no.2. So, the SBI returned the excess amount to the opposite party no.2 without any interest thereon as under the PPF Scheme, any excess amount deposited would not carry any interest. But, this aspect has not been properly dealt with by the learned Ombudsman. 7. Mr.Balakrishna, learned counsel for the SBI further submitted that the learned Ombudsman is erred in law by not fixing the responsibility on the opposite party no.2 for depositing the excess amount although he is a regular account holder under the PPF Scheme and it is well settled in law that ignorance of the law is not an excuse to anyone. 8. Mr.Balakrishna, leaned counsel for the SBI contended that according to Section-10 of the Act, 1968, no suit or legal proceeding can lie against the bank as the opposite party no.2 has accepted the entire deposits in his PPF account on good faith. Since the learned Ombudsman, opposite party no.1 has passed an illegal and improper award, the same should be quashed. 9. Per contra, Mr.Ramesh Sahu-3, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, supporting the counter affidavit, submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable because no case would lie against the award passed by the learned Banking Ombudsman, opposite party no.1 as the same is conciliatory/adjudicatory in nature. The finding of the learned Banking Ombudsman is binding on the SBI under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme. The finding of the learned Banking Ombudsman is binding on the SBI under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme. Further, the SBI has developed the case in the writ petition by not urging the same before the learned Ombudsman on the plea that no interest has accrued on the excess amount in the account of the opposite party no.2. 10. Mr.Sahu-3, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 further submitted that an amount of Rs.3,11,329.00 has accrued as interest and the said fact has been communicated by the SBI to the opposite party no.2 also by advising the same to be adjusted as excess interest paid for the period from 1999 to 2001. Again, the SBI cited the same as recoverable from the account of the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 has filed another writ petition, i.e, W.P.(C) No.10632 of 2006 challenging the recovery. 11. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 further submitted that if the ceiling limit for depositing in PPF account per year is Rs.60,000/-, then the SBI should have returned the excess amount immediately without keeping the same for the entire period from 01.06.1998 to 04.09.2001. So, the learned Ombudsman after hearing both the parties has rightly found that the SBI is entitled to return the amount with accrued interest. Therefore, he supported the entire award passed by the learned Ombudsman and submitted to dismiss the writ petition. 12. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION The main point for consideration is as to whether the SBI is justified in returning the excess amount of Rs.8,31,845.23 to opposite party no.2 without any interest. 13. DISCUSSIONS It is admitted fact that the opposite party no.2 has got PPF Account No.703 under the Act, 1968. It is not in dispute that the opposite party no.2 has a total deposit of Rs.8,71,845.23 on 1.6.1998 and Rs.20,000/-on 6.11.1998 with the SBI. It is also undisputed that on 28.08.1998, an amount of Rs.8,31,845.23 was returned to the opposite party no.2 without any interest accrued thereon on the ground that the opposite party no.2 is not entitled to such interest having deposited more than the limit of Rs.60,000/-in his PPF account. It is also undisputed that on 28.08.1998, an amount of Rs.8,31,845.23 was returned to the opposite party no.2 without any interest accrued thereon on the ground that the opposite party no.2 is not entitled to such interest having deposited more than the limit of Rs.60,000/-in his PPF account. It is also admitted fact that the learned Ombudsman was approached by the complainant-opposite party no.2 and the learned Ombudsman passed award under Clause-20 of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 1995 (hereinafter called “the Scheme, 1995”) directing the petitioner to return interest accrued on the excess amount deposited by the opposite party no.2. 14. The Reserve Bank of India (in short “the RBI”) promulgated the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 1995 purportedly under exercise of power under Section 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The avowed object of the Scheme of 1995 is to provide for a system of Banking Ombudsman for redressal of the grievances against deficiency in banking services, concerning loans and advances and other specified matters. The object of the Scheme, 1995 is to enable resolution of complaints relating to provisions of banking services and to facilitate the satisfaction, or settlement of such complaints. 15. Under Clause-16 of the Scheme, 1995, any person who has a grievance against a bank, may itself or through an authorized representative make a complaint in writing to the Banking Ombudsman and two months time is given to the bank concerned to reply. Vide Clause-17 of the Scheme, 1995, learned Ombudsman would require the bank named in the complaint to provide any information or furnish certified copies of any document relating to the subject matter of the complaint which is or is alleged to be in its possession. Clause-18 of the Scheme, 1995 enshrines that a settlement between the parties can be arrived at with the intervention of the learned Ombudsman. Clause-19 of the Scheme, 1995 says that if a complaint is not settled by agreement within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the complaint or such further period as he may consider necessary, the Banking Ombudsman may make a recommendation by reference. Clause-20 of the Scheme, 1995 is described below for better reference: “20. Clause-19 of the Scheme, 1995 says that if a complaint is not settled by agreement within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the complaint or such further period as he may consider necessary, the Banking Ombudsman may make a recommendation by reference. Clause-20 of the Scheme, 1995 is described below for better reference: “20. AWARD BY THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN: (1) Where the complaint is not settled by agreement or recommendation as provided in cls 18 or 19 as the case may be, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the complaint or such extended date as may be considered necessary by him, the Banking Ombudsman shall inform the parties of his intention to pass an Award. (2) It shall be open to the parties to submit any further representations or evidence in support of their case within a period of 15 days from the date of notice referred to in subclause (1). (3) The Banking Ombudsman shall pass an Award after affording the parties reasonable opportunity to present their case. He shall be guided by the evidence placed before him by the parties, the principles of banking law and practice, directions, instructions and guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank from time to time and such other factors which in his opinion are necessary in the interest of justice. (4) An Award shall be in writing and shall state the direction(s), if any, to the bank for specific performance of its obligations and the amount awarded to the complainant by way of compensation for the loss suffered by him belong with a summary of the reasons for making the award: Provided that the Banking Ombudsman shall not award any compensation in excess of that which is necessary to cover the loss suffered by the complainant as a direct consequence of the commission or omission of the bank, or for an amount exceeding rupees ten lakhs, whichever is lower. (5) A copy of the award shall be sent to the complainant and the bank named in the complaint. (6) An Award shall not be binding on a bank against which it is passed unless the complainant furnishes to it, within a period of one month from the date of the Award, a letter of acceptance of the award in full and final settlement of his claim in the matter. (6) An Award shall not be binding on a bank against which it is passed unless the complainant furnishes to it, within a period of one month from the date of the Award, a letter of acceptance of the award in full and final settlement of his claim in the matter. Within fifteen days from the date of receipt by it, of the acceptance in writing of the Award by the complainant, the bank shall comply with the Award and intimate the compliance to the Banking Ombudsman. (7) The Banking Ombudsman shall report to the Reserve Bank the non-compliance by the bank of an Award which became binding on it pursuant to sub-clause (6).” The aforesaid clause of the Scheme, 1995 makes it clear that the award of the learned Ombudsman is binding on both the parties. But the award would not be binding on the bank if a letter of acceptance of the award in full and final settlement of his claim is made by complainant to bank from the date of award. When the complainant made acceptance of award within said time, the bank has to comply the award within fifteen days of receipt of award by complainant. 16. The impugned award passed by the learned Ombudsman has been challenged in this case mainly on the ground that the learned Ombudsman, without following the provisions of the Act, 1968 and Scheme made thereunder, has directed the bank to pay the interest accrued on the excess amount deposited by the opposite party no.2. The Scheme, 1995 has been framed under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 not only facilitates conciliatory process so as to meet the customers of the bank to their entitlements but also learned Ombudsman can adjudicate the matter by following the principles of natural justice, if conciliation fails. 17. The Act, 1968 was introduced with an object to provide for institution of a provident fund for the general public. The fund is meant to extend the benefit to the long term savings for the individuals. The Scheme is framed under this Act showing maximum and minimum limits in respect of subscription to the fund, extent to which withdrawals may be made. It is admitted by both parties that Rs.60,000/-is the maximum limit to be deposited by any PPF account holder within a year, i.e, from 1st April to 31st of March. 18. The Scheme is framed under this Act showing maximum and minimum limits in respect of subscription to the fund, extent to which withdrawals may be made. It is admitted by both parties that Rs.60,000/-is the maximum limit to be deposited by any PPF account holder within a year, i.e, from 1st April to 31st of March. 18. The impugned award passed by the learned Ombudsman is as follows: “AWARD Considering the deficiency in service by the bank, the bank shall pay interest at the then prevailing FD rate (on simple basis) applicable to both the deposits, i.e, Rs.8,11,845.23 deposited on 01.6.1998 and Rs.20,000/-deposited on 06.11.1998; the balance of Rs.60,000/-earning interest as per the PPF Scheme from 01.6.1998. A copy of the Award be sent to the complainant for acceptance and to furnish a letter of acceptance to the bank within a period of one month from the date of the Award, in full and final settlement of his claim. Within 15 days from the date of receipt of such letter of acceptance, the bank shall comply with the Award and intimate the compliance to the Banking Ombudsman.” The aforesaid impugned award shows that when the opposite party no.2 has deposited huge amount of Rs.8,71,845.23 on 1.6.1998 and Rs.20,000/-on 6.11.1998 beyond the limit of Rs.60,000/-in his PPF account, the bank has not acted promptly to return the excess amount and thereby has got deficiency in service. 19. Mr.Balkrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner-SBI submitted that the SBI is an agent of Government of India facilitating the deposit of money by public under the Scheme, 1995. It is only available from Annexure-3 that the Chief General Manager of the SBI has replied to the complainant that under Section 5 of the Act, 1968, all subscriptions made under Section 4 shall bear interest at such rate from which it follows that a subscriber is entitled for interest up to maximum limit of Rs.60,000/-and in other words, he will not get interest for deposits beyond the stipulated upper limit, i.e, Rs.60,000/-under the Act, 1968. 20. It appears from the copy of the impugned award that excess deposit of Rs.8,31,845.23 has been returned on 04.09.2001 long after three years of original deposits being made after adjusting Rs.60,000/-made for the year 1998. 20. It appears from the copy of the impugned award that excess deposit of Rs.8,31,845.23 has been returned on 04.09.2001 long after three years of original deposits being made after adjusting Rs.60,000/-made for the year 1998. It is also revealed from the objection filed by the opposite party no.2 that the said amount has already accrued interest of Rs.3,11,329.00 and subsequently adjusted by the bank. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that for this interest, which has been adjusted to the account of the opposite party no.2, the same has been taken as recovery from the opposite party no.2 for which another writ petition, i.e, W.P.(C) No.10632 of 2006, has been filed challenging such recovery. Annexure-A/2 series show that the excess amount deposited has been returned by the SBI to the opposite party no.2 and it has been stated that excess interest paid in the account for the aforesaid period shall be adjusted. These materials show that on the said excess amount deposited by the opposite party no.2, there is already interest accrued. 21. Paragraph-11 of the writ petition is quoted hereunder for better reference: “11. That the Bank operates the Scheme as an agent of Government of India. There is no scope to confer any benefit on the depositor beyond the scope of the Scheme. The excess amount is credit to Government Account, the fund is enjoyed by Government of India and therefore, payment of interest on excess amount does not arise. Thus, the banking Ombudsman has mis-directed itself in passing the Award for payment of interest on the excess amount and hence, the award is liable to be quashed.” The aforesaid paragraph is not clear to show that the SBI has already deposited the excess amount with the Government of India so that it is not refundable. There is no any proof filed by the SBI to show that excess amount has already been credited to the account of Government of India but on the other hand, it is reiterated that the interest has already accrued on the excess deposit. Thus, the SBI has failed to prove that the excess amount has not accrued any interest and the same is not returnable to the opposite party no.2. 22. Learned Ombudsman has already described about the negligence of the SBI for receiving the excess amount from the opposite party no.2 under the Act, 1968. Thus, the SBI has failed to prove that the excess amount has not accrued any interest and the same is not returnable to the opposite party no.2. 22. Learned Ombudsman has already described about the negligence of the SBI for receiving the excess amount from the opposite party no.2 under the Act, 1968. The negligence has been compounded when the bank retained the excess amount without the same being deposited on the account of the Government of India and at the same time, returned the excess amount after a long period of three years. So, the opinion of the learned Ombudsman about the deficiency of service of SBI cannot be faulted with by any stretch of imagination. 23. When the Act, 1986 does not debar accrue of interest, the excess deposit of opposite party no.2 has already accrued interest and the bank has got deficiency of service, the Court is of the view that the SBI is not justified in returning the excess amount to the opposite party no.2 without any interest. The point is answered accordingly. 24. CONCLUSION Mr.Balakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned award of the learned Ombudsman is wrong and beyond his jurisdiction because under Section 10 of the Act, 1968, no suit or proceeding can be initiated against the person acted on a good faith. Mr.Sahu, leaned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that the aforesaid provision would not be attracted since in the present case, the interest being accrued but not paid is an act of malafideness. Section 10 of the Act, 1968 is an immunity clause to the authority under the Act, 1968 but the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, as stated earlier, has got avowed object to conciliate between the parties and in absence of any conciliation, make adjudication on receiving the evidence from both sides. Before the learned Ombudsman, the SBI has not alleged about lack of jurisdiction. Apart from this, jurisdiction of the learned Ombudsman lies in settlement of claim of the person aggrieved with the deficiency of service or any adjustment of the loan amount or any other ancillary matter of the bank. The Court is of the view that Section 10 of the Act, 1968 would not be attracted in the present fact and circumstances of the case. 25. The Court is of the view that Section 10 of the Act, 1968 would not be attracted in the present fact and circumstances of the case. 25. It is reported in the case of Allahabad Bank, Agra –V-Banking Ombudsman, Kanpur and others; II (2013) BC 117 (DB) where a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, at paragraph-4 of the judgment, has held in the following manner; “4.According to us, Ombudsman is creature of the Scheme framed by the Reserve Bank of India. Normal, practice, even as per the Reserve Bank of India, is not to interfere with the decision of the Ombudsman. We are not sitting in appeal over and above the order/award of the Ombudsman. Therefore, we are concerned about the decision making process but not the decision. From the award of the Ombudsman, we find that such authority has considered all pros and cons and the harassment of a widow in getting a meagre amount from the bank.......” The aforesaid decision is clear to show that the Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can only intervene if there is wrong with the decision making process but not the decision. It is reiterated that in the case in hand, the decision of the learned Ombudsman is clear and correct and no procedural irregularity is found. Hence, the Court is of the view that the impugned award passed by the learned Ombudsman should be affirmed and the Court direct so. It is further directed that the impugned award passed by the learned Ombudsman should be implemented within a period of three months from today. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.