NEELA V.RAJE vs AMOGH INDUSTRIES

THIS is an appeal against the order of the District Forum, Pune dated 12.2.1991 passed in Complaint No. 64/90. The appellant had approached the District Forum, Pune alleging that she had deposited Rs. 35,000/- with Amogh Industries for purposes of getting interest. The complainant alleged that Amogh Industries Stopped paying interest since April, 1989. It is further alleged that as regards the deposit receipt of Rs. 10,000/- although the period of deposit had expired on 22.11.88, the Amogh Industries did not return back the principal amount together with interest. The complainant, therefore claimed that the Principal amount of her two deposits amounting to Rs. 35,000/- be ordered to be returned to her with interest.

THE opposite party filed its written version and raised the preliminary issue of jurisdiction of the District Forum and submitted that the Civil Court alone had the jurisdiction to decide the dispute. It is however admitted that the complainant had deposited Rs. 35,000/- THE Amogh Industries did not settle the claim of the complainant on various excuses. THE District Forum rejected the complaint of the complainant on the ground that it is not maintainable before the District Forum as it has no jurisdiction to decide the subject matter. THE District Forum further advised the complainant to approach the Civil Court for the relief. THE District Forum observed that payment of interest simplicitor will not fall within the definition of "service", appearing in Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. THE District Forum has given a detailed judgment discussing various aspects and has come to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. Feeling aggrieved, therefore, the complainant has approached this Commission in the present appeal. We have heard Shri Shirish Deshpande for the appellant and Shri V.P. Dube, Advocate for the respondent. We have also heard Mrs. Irene Fonseca as anicuscurai as the question arose for our determination has large ramification.

On hearing the arguments of the appellant, we are not convinced that the present dispute can fall within the jurisdiction of Consumer Protection Act for the following reasons :- A consumer can approach the District Forum or State Commission for any defect in the goods, deficiency in the service and as a result of unfair trade practice adopted by any trader, where the complainant has suffered loss or damage. In the instant case, the complainant has produced on record zeroxed copies of the two fixed deposits receipts. The true copies of receipts show that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- were invested by complainant in a Scheme ''B'' and ''C with the opposite party. There is a mention about the date of deposit and also the date of maturity for a period of three years. It is also stated therein the rate of interest. Beyond these two fixed deposit receipts Ex. 8 and 9, no other document is placed on record to show any other conditions between the parties. There is no documentary or oral evidence on record to show that the opposite party viz. Amogh Industries were to render any sort of service for consideration to the complainant in respect of the aforesaid two deposits. It is purely a transaction of depositing money in fixed deposit for earning the interest. In such a transaction, the first question which arises is as to who could be the consumer of services? Whether the depositor is a consumer or the person who receives the deposit is a consumer? If the receiver of the amount is a consumer then the complainant had no locus-standi to file the complaint. If it is a case of hiring of service, the complainant has not demonstrated by convincing evidence as to what service was agreed to be rendered by Amogh Industries to the complainant. In our view, merely returning the amount of deposit or payment of interest thereupon the transaction cannot be considered as a contract for hiring of a service. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the complainant had hired the service of Amogh Industries, no material is placed before the District Forum as to what service was to be rendered by Amogh Industries to the complainant. In absence of any convincing evidence as regards the rendering of the service by opposite party the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act will not be attracted. The burden lies on the consumer to prove the hiring of any service for consideration. The burden of proof can be discharged by oral and documentary evidence. In the instant case the complainant failed to discharge the burden of proving the nature of service to be rendered by opposite party. Merely agreeing to pay interest with some intervals cannot be regarded as service. Consequently the complainant could not prove the hiring of service of opposite party.

SHRI Shirish Deshpande submitted that the definition of ''service'' appearing in the Consumer Protection Act is wider in its aptitude and can include the ''service'' of any description. We are in agreement with SHRI Deshpande on the proposition that the definition of ''service'' is very wide and inclusive and in its sweep can include the service of any description. As a matter of fact, the service of any description has to be proved like any fact. In the instant case, we find that the complainant totally failed to establish the service which was to be rendered by the opposite party to the complainant. Another argument of SHRI Deshpande. is that aforesaid definition includes "financing". The meaning of word ''finance'' appearing in the Oxford Reference Dictionary published in 1986 is as under:- "the management of money, support in money for an enterprise, money resources, to provide the capital for a person or enterprise". Thus financing would only mean to provide the capital to a person or an enterprise. Any such similar system would mean financing. Considering the facts of this case, we find that complainant has failed to demonstrate the ''service which was to be rendered by the opposite party. In this view of the matter, we find that the District Forum was correct in rejecting the complaint of complainant as outside the jurisdiction of District Forum. We are of the view that if a consumer claims that his complaint falls within the meaning of ''financing'' occurring in the definition ''service'', the consumer has to demonstrate and prove as to what ''service'' he has hired from the person with whom he has deposited money. It cannot be considered that the deposition of money for earning interest is always a consumer of the services. In a given case, if the consumer is able to show that he had hired the particular services, then, the onus lies on him to show either by documentary or oral evidence the nature of the service with terms and conditions agreed upon to be rendered to a consumer by the opposite, party. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the District Forum, Pune was correct in its view to reject the complaint. We also feel that if similar complaints are entertained for decision, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, it would open flood gates to the depositors of money who deposit the money with a view to earn interest. We. anticipate the consequences which are likely to flow in such disputes due. to the quick decision and inexpensive remedial measures. The District Forum and State Commission are established to settle the consumer disputes of genuine consumers under the Scheme of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, we concur the decision of District Forum, Pune. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.