The definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 includes any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration.

Mr. Justice Navin Chandra Sharma, President — The three revisions mentioned above will be decided by this common order as they involve identical questions of law and fact.

2. The petitioner in the revision petitions namely. The Headway Finance & Investment Co. Ltd., regd. office Agra had floated a guarantee money back investment scheme. Under this scheme any person could make a monthly payment of Rs. 100/- for 100 months and upon maturity, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- plus 4,500 was payable. Chandra Mohan Agarwal, Pramod Kumar Agarwal and Dinesh Chand Bansal had agreed to invest in the above saving scheme floated by the petitioner Company. Chandra Mohan Agarwal deposited 86 monthly instalments of Rs. 100/-, Pramod Kumar Agarwal deposited Rs. 4,000/- in quarterly instalments because the scheme to which he had contributed was quarterly. Dinesh Chand Bansal deposited a total amount of Rs. 4,000/- by quarterly instalments under quarterly deposit scheme. The Reserve Bank of India issued a prohibitory order restraining the petitioner-company from accepting the deposits. All the three complainants then filed complaint cases before the District Forum, Dholpur. Complaint Case No. 84/92 out of which Revision No. 122/95 arises was decided by the District Forum, Dholpur on 29.4.93 and the Forum passed an order as against the opposite party-petitioner to pay to Chandra Mohan Agarwal Rs. 8,600/- deposited by him, bonus amount of Rs. 4,500/- and interest @ 12% from 25.9.92 (the maturity date) and Rs. 300/- as compensation for mental distress and agony. The Complaint Case No. 43/92 filed by Pramod Kumar Agarwal was decided by the District Forum, Dholpur on 4.3.93 and the petitioner was directed to pay to Pramod Kumar Agarwal Rs. 6.000/- and interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. January, 1992 till payment and Rs. 30/- as postage expenses. Complaint No. 31/93 filed by Dinesh Chand Bansal was decided on 4.5.93 by the said District Forum and the petitioner was directed to pay to Dinesh Chand Bansal Rs. 6,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. January, 1991 till payment. Aggrieved by all these three orders passed in the aforesaid complaint cases, the opposite party-petitioner filed intitially appeals Nos. 50,51 and 52 of 1995 respectively. These appeals were reported to be barred by limitation. The State Commission dismissed the application for condonation of delay and treated the appeals as barred by limitation. However, they were ordered to be registered as revisions in order to examine the legality and propriety of the order of the District Forum, Dholpur in suo-motu revisional jurisdiction. Mr. Arjun Karnani, Advocate has appeared for the petitioner-Company in all the three revision petitions and Mr. S.C. Mittal, Advocate has appeared for complainant- respondent in Revision Petition No. 122/95. Complainants-respondents in other revisions have not appeared despite service.

3. One of the objections which had been taken by the petitioner is that the complainants were not 'consumers' within the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and payment of interest on deposit was not 'service'. There is no merit whatsoever in this contention. The National Commission in the case of Neela Vasantrajay v. Aamogh Industries and Another, reported in III (1993) CPJ 261 (NC) , has held that when a company or firm invites deposits on promise of attractive rates of interest and prompt re-payment of principal and interest on the expiry of the stipulated period with full security is rendering a service in the form of safe avenue for investment of funds for consideration. To the same effect is the another decision of the National Commission in the case of Dhanalakshmi Consolidates Industries Ltd. v. C.S. Menon and Others, reported in III (1993) CPJ 299 (NC). Other State Commissions have also held the same view. Reference in this connection may be made to the decisions reported in I (1992) CPJ 286 (Delhi State Commission), II (1992) CPJ 1018 (Delhi State Commission, II (1993)