The court established that inviting deposits on promise of attractive rates of interest tantamount to a service, making the depositor a consumer availing of such service. It also clarified the joint and several liability of partners in a firm for transactions entered into in the firm's name.

Mr. Justice M.S. Parikh, President—These proceedings arise out of the order passed by the learned City Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad dated 17.3.1998 in Complaint Nos. 454/1997 and 455/1997.

2. The respondents being the complainants moved the learned City Forum in Complaint Nos. 454/1997 and 455/1997 for reliefs of repayment of their fixed deposit receipts respectively in the sum of Rs. 13,500/- and Rs. 6,500/- interest @ 18% p.a. from the opponent being the appellants herein. As per the respective orders dated 17.3.1998, the learned City Forum granted the reliefs directing repayment of the aforesaid fixed deposit amounts with interest as prayed for and cost quantified at Rs. 1,500/- each. Both these orders have been subjected to appeal and since there was delay in filing the appeals, applications for condonation of delay have been moved. Since we propose to decide the appeals on merits, applications for condonation of delay will stand granted condoning the delay, with no order as to costs. These are in short the proceedings between the parties before this Commission. We do not propose to enter into the chequered history how the present proceedings have reached the present stage of hearing. Suffice to say that even in these proceedings, we have been able to notice serious default on the part of the appellants and it is only after the Commission in the past granted Restoration Applications (Nos. 81/1999 and 82/1999) that the present proceedings have come up for hearing before this Commission.

3. The stand of the appellants before the learned Forum was that the Forum did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaints. This defence was canvassed without prejudice to the contentions of the appellants who did not specifically deny the transactions but generally denied them. The learned Forum discarded the defences and passed the impugned orders.

4. When the matters reached hearing we gave opportunity to the appellants to have their say with regard to the fixed deposits in question. Accordingly, the original fixed deposits have been shown by the respondent to this Commission and the Commission had shown both the fixed deposit receipts to Mr. Shantilal D. Vora, father of Mr. Nalin S. Vora, present before the Commission. Mr. Shantilal D. Vora admitted that the deposits were on the printed form of deposits of the firm in which he was the partner [Parasmani Medical Stores]. His say was that at the relevant point of time though he was partner with his son Mr. Nalin S. Vora, there was subsequent deed of dissolution [it is not produced in any of the proceedings] and that his son went astray and had not been able to account for the aforesaid amounts of fixed deposits to him. In short, his defence before this Commission was that he was not the recipient of the amount of the fixed deposit receipts in the aforesaid circumstances. In this background, we heard Mr. R.M. Shah for him and firm M/s. Parasmani Medical Stores who are appellants before this Commission. We, now proceed to deal with his submissions.

5. In the first place, it was submitted by Mr. R.M. Shah, learned Advocate for the appellants that M/s. Parasmani Medical Stores, a partnership firm, is dealing in medicines and the complaints in question were not with regard to the service which are usually rendered by M/s. Parasmani Medical Stores. It is not in dispute that as part of the business, the said firm would require money/finance and that is how the firm had got printed fixed deposit receipts and the firm must be getting deposits from the public. The two deposit receipts which have been shown to us and which have been produced on the record of the appeal with a separate list reflected the actual transaction of fixed deposit which the firm of M/s. Parasmani Medical Stores entered into with the respective complainants. Thus, the financial dealings clearly appear to be part and parcel of the business activities which the appellant M/s. Parasmani Medical Stores undertook