E.J. Bellie, President

1. By this order the above titled 13 appeals are disposed of. All these appeals arise out of one common order rendered by the District Forum, Tirunelveli in 13 OPs before it. The complainants are different in the said 13 OPs but the opposite parties in all the OPs are the same. The question involved in all matters are common one. Hence this common order in the appeals.

2. In the said 13 OPs, in 12 of them each of the complainants on 31.3.93 has deposited a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with the State Bank of India, Palayamkottai, under the Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1988. In the remaining O.P., i.e., C.D.P. No. 21/95 the complainant on the same date had deposited Rs. 1,50,000/-. The opposite parties on 4.5.94 sent back to each of the 12 complainants a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- and to the complainant in the remaining O.P. No. 21/95 a sum of Rs. 90,000/- stating that the maximum that can be deposited under Public Provident Fund Scheme is Rs. 60,000/- only and therefore the amounts over and above that deposited by the claimants were returned back. Now the case of the complainant is that the amount said to be paid over and above the maximum amount that could be deposited has been sent to them without any interest thereon, at the time of the deposit the opposite party did not inform the complainants that the maximum amount that could be deposited under the said scheme is only Rs. 60,000/-. Having kept quiet for a long time from 31.3.93 to 4.5.94, returning the amounts without interest, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. On these grounds the complainants have prayed for interest @ 12% p.a. from 31.3.93 to 4.5.94 and also a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to each of the complainants.

3. The opposite parties contended that the complainants had voluntarily deposited the amounts and there was no inducement by the opposite party for such deposits and as soon as it was found out that the complainants had deposited the amounts over and above the maximum amount that can be deposited under the scheme, the excess amount has been returned to them. They further contended that all the complainants belong to one family which is running a business and they have deposited the amount on the advice of one Sirajudeen. It has been with some ulterior motives the complainants have deposited the amounts over and above the maximum amount that can be deposited. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the opposite parties were in deficiency in service and therefore they are not liable to pay the amount claimed by the complainant.

4. The District Forum, considering the pleadings and the evidence in the case, came to the conclusion that the excess amount had been deposited by the complainants voluntarily and as soon as the opposite parties came to know about the excess deposit of amount they had returned the same and as such there was no deficiency in service on their part and hence they are not liable to pay any interest on the said amount for the period the excess amounts were with them or any compensation. On this finding the District Forum dismissed the original petition.

5. Now in the appeals, after hearing the Counsel for both sides and also on perusing the documents, we find no reason to differ from the findings of the District Forum. It is not in dispute that under the Public Provident Fund Scheme the maximum amount that could be deposited is Rs. 60,000/-. Such an amount will enjoy the benefits of tax liberty. The grievance of the complainants appears to be that at the time when the deposits were made the opposite party did not tell that the maximum amount that could be deposited under this scheme is Rs. 60,000/-. But we do not think that this would constitute deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The depositors are expected to know the maximum amount that could be deposited and it they had deposited any amount excess of it/ they have to blame themselves and they cannot say anything against the opposite parties. It is not the case of the complainants that it was by the request or inducement of the opposite parties the excess amounts were deposited. According to the opposite parties as soon as it was found that the complainants had deposited excess amount the amounts were returned to them. In these circumstances, there is no justification in the complainants claiming interest on the excess amount returned. The

y are not entitled to such interest under the terms of the schemes or under any other rules. Therefore the case of the complainants that they are entitled for interest on the said excess amounts cannot be accepted. It follows that they are not entitled for any compensation. Thus considering we find that the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaints. 6. The result is the appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.