The deposit of money for earning interest is not a service within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President— 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 co