Mr. Justice S.K. Dubey, President—This is an appeal against the order dated 7.12.1998 passed in Case No. 246/98 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (for short the ‘District Forum’).

2. The appellant is a registered Company under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short ‘Companies Act’) having its registered office at 5-9-88/2, Saphire Building, Fateh Maidan, Hyderabad - 500 001. The respondent purchased Alday Cash Bond Scheme of Rs. 62,500/- from the appellant of the maturity value of Rs. 77,500/- which included interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum till the date of its maturity. On demand the maturity amount was not paid, hence the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum. The appellant filed its written statement but did not appear to contest the case. The District Forum after appreciation of evidence ordered to make the payment of the maturity value with interest at the rate of 18% from 1.3.1998 and Rs. 500/- as cost of the proceedings.

3. In the memo of appeal main ground of the contention is that a winding-up petition under Section 434 of the Companies Act read with Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short the ‘SIC Act’) before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, is pending against the appellant and, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable, hence the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside. The appellant Company has also made a reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short BIFR) and a Case No. 236/98 has been registered by the BIFR, therefore, till the final order is passed after inquiry under Section 22 of the SIC Act, all proceedings in respect of financial assets of the Company shall remain suspended. Appellant has referred in the memo of appeal a decision of Supreme Court in Real Value Appliance Ltd. v. Canara Bank, AIR 1998 SC 2064, and a decision of National Commission in Standard Motor Products of India Ltd. v. M. Mohan Rao, III (1994) CPJ 118 (NC). Besides, the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ‘Act’) and that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to admit the complaint.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the appeal has not been filed with the certified copy of order, as required by Sub-rule 3 of Rule 8 of M.P. Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 (for short ‘Rules’) which speaks that “Each memorandum shall be accompanied by the certified copy of the order of the District Forum appealed against and such of the documents as may be required to support grounds of objection mentioned in the memorandum”. The appeal is also barred by time as not filed within thirty days from the date of the receipt of the order.

5. The contention about the incompetency of the appeal deserves consideration, but, we are not inclined to dismiss the appeal as incompetent and deal this appeal on the merits of the ground raised in the memo or appeal.

6. The contention that the deposit holder is not a consumer as longer res-integra in view of the decisions of the National Commission in case of Neela Vasant Raje v. Amogh Industries & Anr., III (1992) CPJ 540=1993 (3) CPR 343 (Delhi), and Dhanalakshmi Consolidates Industries Ltd. v. C.S. Menon, III (1993) CPJ 299 (NC), wherein it has been held that when a Company or firm invites deposits promising attractive rates of interest, it amounts to rendering of financial services as it receives deposits from customers and pays interest therein. The consideration for the hiring of the services is the payment of the deposit for a fixed term so as to enable the Company to invest or utilise the money for earning profits, therefore, the deposit holder-the complainant would be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.

7. The contention that the District Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction is devoid of merit. The amount paid for purchase of Alday Cash