An individual who hires services under a financing scheme is a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act and is entitled to relief if the service provider fails to fulfill its obligations.

Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SECTION 2(1)(D) - DEPOSITS MADE WITH A FINANCING SCHEME - CLASSIFICATION OF COMPLAINANT AS A 'CONSUMER' - INTERPRETATION OF 'CONSUMER' UNDER THE ACT - APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT TO DEPOSITS MADE UNDER A FINANCING SCHEME.
Fact of the Case:

The complainant deposited various sums of money with the opposite party under a financing scheme floated by the opposite party, promising to refund the said amount with interest at 24% p.a. The opposite party failed to refund the deposits and interest, prompting the complainant to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the complainant was a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act as he had hired the services of the opposite party by making deposits under the financing scheme. The court also found that the opposite party had admitted the various deposits made by the complainant and that the complainant had received interest from the opposite party up to January 1986.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainant can be classified as a 'consumer' under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act? 2. If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled to?
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the term 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act broadly to include individuals who hire services, not just those who purchase goods. The court held that the complainant, by making deposits under the financing scheme, had hired the services of the opposite party and was therefore a 'consumer' under the Act. The court also held that the opposite party's failure to refund the deposits and interest constituted a deficiency in service, entitling the complainant to relief under the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay the complainant the sum of Rs.8,600/- covered under Ex. C-1 to C-5, with interest at 18% p.a. from 1.2.86, till the date of payment. The opposite party was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

ORDER

Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President—In this complaint, the complainant has sought refund of the deposits made by him with the opposite party with interest thereon.

2. This complaint was filed on 26.3.1990. It could not be taken up for enquiry as there was stay order issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. After the stay was vacated, the enquiry was taken-up.

3. A notice was issued to one Sri. Paramjit Singh, M/s. Man-Jog Builders, Bangalore. Mr. Paramjit Singh, denied his liability regarding the deposits made by the complainant. So the complainant submitted to make M/s. Bajaj Electronics, 8 Proprietory concern of Sri. Manjit Singh, son of Mr. Awatar Singh, Bangalore, to be made as a party and issue notice to him as the deposits were made with M/s. Bajaj Electronics. This submission of the complainant was accepted as it is evident from the order sheet dated 1.10.92 and a notice was issued to M/s. Bajaj Electronics the Proprietary concern of Mr. Manjit Singh. The opposite party, Mr. Manjit Singh, appeared and filed statement of objections.

4. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party floated a financing scheme under the name of M/s. Bajaj Electronics, Bangalore, and invited the deposits from the public at large. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in the joint name of himself and his wife under the said scheme with the opposite party, as per Ex.C-1, on 3.12.1983. The date of its maturity was 6.12.88 and the amount was repayable with interest at 24% p.a.

The complainant, under the said scheme, deposited a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- as per Ex.C-2 on 16.4.1984 repayable after a period of 5 years with interest at 24% p.a. thereon.

The complainant, made a further deposit of Rs. 30,000/- under the joint name of himself and his wife on 1.8.1985, as per Ex.C-3. The amount under which was repayable with interest at 24% p.a. after a period of 5 years.

The complainant, made further deposit of Rs.10,000/- on 11.1.1985, as per Ex.C-4, repayable after expiry of a period of 5 years with interest 24% p.a. thereon.

5. The complainant further averred that he had earlier deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- with the opposite party in repayment of which, the opposite party gave a cheque for a dm of Rs. 18,600/- on 31.1.1989, as per Ex.C-5. But the said cheque was dishonoured. The complainant, further a verred that he had received interest every month up to January 1986 on those amounts deposited by him, from the opposite party. But there after to be opposite party failed to pay the interest and refused to refund the deposits made by the complainant. The complainant on the basis of these averments, submitted that the opposite party committed a deficiency in rendering service as a Banker and so sought the refund of the amount deposited by him with interest thereon.

6. The opposite party filed its statement of objections. It has not denied specifically the averments made by the complainant regarding the various deposits made by him with the opposite party. The opposite party, only urged that the complainant cannot be classified as a ‘consumer’ and therefore, the complaint under the provisions of the Act, was untenable.

7. During enquiry, the complainant examined himself as C.W.I and got Ex.C-1 to C-8, marked in evidence, Ex.C-1 to C-7 are al Xerox copies. The complainant has produced an endorsement issued by the police, as per Ex.C-8, to show that the original of all the documents were produced by the complainant before the police in connection with the investigation in Crime No. 162/1989 under Section 420 I.P.C. registered against the opposite party. The opposite party had not taken any objection while Xerox copies were marked in evidence. The opposite party has also not denied these documents in the objections filed by it and in the affidavit of the opposite party, Mr. Manjit Singh.

8. The opposite party gave affidavit in evidence.

9. We have perused the pleadings of the parties and also heard the complainant and the learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis