ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The appellant had deposited some money with the respondent-Bank for which Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) were issued. The FDRs indicated that the interest payable on the deposited amount will be 11.5% and the maturity amount was calculated accordingly as stated in the FDRs. 4. When the appellant went to renew the FDRs, the respondent-bank calculated the amount at the time of renewal with interest at 8.25% on the basis of some circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India. 5. According to the appellant, the renewal should have been on the maturity value as mentioned in the FDRs which maturity amount was calculated with interest at 11.5%. 6. Since the respondent-bank did not agree to the submission of the appellant, a complaint was filed by the appellant in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (District Forum). The complaint was allowed by the District Forum. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent-Bank preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission), but that appeal was dismissed. 8. Against the dismissal of the appeal by the State Commission, a revision petition was filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission). This revision petition was allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 6th April, 2015. 9. The National Commission upheld the contention of the respondent-Bank that the interest payable to the appellant on the FDRs should have been 8.25% and not 11.5%, as mentioned in the FDRs. 10. The view of the National Commission was that the respondent-Bank had made a clerical mistake and it was bound to obey the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India fixing the rate of interest at 8.25%. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we are of the view that if there is a mistake committed by the respondent-Bank, then it is only the respondent-Bank who should suffer the consequence and not the consumer or customer of the Bank. The appellant had deposited the money with the respondent-Bank only on the condition that he was being granted 11.5% interest. Perhaps if he had been told that the deposit would carry an interest of only 8.25%, he might not have made the deposit. The appellant had deposited the money with the respondent-Bank only on the condition that he was being granted 11.5% interest. Perhaps if he had been told that the deposit would carry an interest of only 8.25%, he might not have made the deposit. But, in any case the respondent-Bank had accepted the deposit at 11.5% and also issued FDRs which indicated the maturity amount with interest at 11.5%. Therefore, the respondent-Bank is bound by the terms of the FDRs, as given to the appellant. 12. Under the circumstances, the order passed by the National Commission is set aside and the order of the District Forum is restored. 13. The appeals are allowed.