VIJAY TRADING COMPANY vs Chandrabai

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 29.12.2001 passed in case No. 165/2001 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, East Nimar (for short the "District Forum") whereby the complaint for deficiency in service in not making the payment of the amount of Rs. 30,000/- deposited in Fixed Deposit was allowed with an order to pay the amount of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 300/- as costs of the proceedings.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent was not a consumer as he lended money on loan and it being a case of recovery of loan, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable. The submission cannot be accepted as it was a transaction of deposit with the appellant as appellants were carrying on and investing the money in financing and other commercial purposes. The question was considered by this Commission in details in Appeal No. 789/2000, Rajesh & Anr. v. Amirchand, decided on 8.11.2000, wherein this Commission after referring to the definition of a promissory note in Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, observed that a "promissory note" is an instrument in writing (not being a bank-note or a current note) containing an unconditional undertaking, signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument. On the other, such a document is receipt as defined under Section 2(23) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short the "Stamp Act") which signifies or imports the acknowledgement of the amount deposited, therefore, it cannot be assumed or inferred from the document that the complainant paid the amount to the appellant as loan, hence, the contention that the remedy for the complainant was to institute the civil suit for realization of the loan amount cannot be accepted.

The complainant is a consumer or not was also considered by this Commission in case of Rajesh & Anr. v. Amir Chand (supra), and observed in paras 10 and 11 of which we quote thus : "10. The contention that the appellant was not a consumer and there was no deficiency on the part of the complainant is also devoid of merit. The question was considered by the National Commission in case of Neela Vasant Raje v. Amogh Industries & Anr., III (1993) CPJ 261 (NC), wherein in para 3 the National Commission observed thus :

''3. We are unable to agree with the reasoning and conclusion concurrently recorded by the State Commission and the District Forum. In interpreting a social welfare legislation one should not make a narrow approach but should be guided by the principles of ''benevolent interpretation'' which will help to promote and achieve the object and purpose of the Act namely, to protect the interest of consumers and suppress the evil sought to be remedied by the statute namely the unscrupulous exploitation of consumers. The main part of the definition of the expression ''service'' is couched in the widest possible language and it expressly covers ''service of any description'' other than any service rendered ''free of charge'' or ''under a contract of personal service''. The mere fact that a particular form of arrangement for provision of a facility does not fall within any of the specified categories enumerated in the inclusive part of the definition is absolutely of no consequence as long as the arrangement entered into between the parties is one of rendering ''service'' as that expression is generally understood in common parlance. We are quite clear in our minds that when a Company or a firm invites deposits on promise of attractive rates of interest and prompt repayment of principal and interest on the expiry of the stipulated period with full security for the investment in the shape of the assets of the Company or firm, it is in essence of an offer by the Company of providing to persons interested a safe avenue for investment of their funds with an assurance of prompt payment and full security of investment. The consideration for the arrangement consists of the fact that the Company or firm is enabled to use the fund deposited with it for the purposes of its business. Such a transaction in our opinion is clearly one of providing service for ''consideration'' and the depositor is clearly a ''consumer'' under the Act. In construing the scope of a social welfare enactment we have to take note of the current state of our society and the ground realities of life confronting the common people. To be offered a safe avenue for investing one''s funds with assurance of reasonable return in the shape of interest and sound security for repayment is certainly to be regarded as a ''service'' under the contemporary conditions prevailing in our society. It is a well known fact which we cannot loose sight of that it is common practice with many hundreds of thousands of middle class families and retired pensioners to invest their funds in such schemes of deposits launched by companies and firms and it would not be right to take a hypertechnical view regarding such an arrangement and deny relief under the Act to these depositors in the event of the Company or firm failing to discharge their obligations in the matter of repayment of the principal and interest on the basis of the arrangement of service entered into between the parties. The default on the part of the Company or firm to carry out its obligations to repay the principal and/or interest constitutes, in our opinion ''deficiency'' in service so as to warrant the filing of a complaint before a Consumer Forum seeking relief under the Act.''

In case of K. Kasi Annapurna & Ors. v. Smt. Vemuri Bharathi & Ors. and K. Kasi Annapurna & Ors. v. Smt. M. Anuradha & Ors., I (1996) CPJ 43 (NC), the National Commission has observed that it is well settled that the failure to refund the amounts deposited with any financial institution on maturity will amount to deficiency in service."

IN view of the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/-. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and a copy be sent to the District Forum along with the record of the case. Appeal dismissed.