P.D. Shenoy, Presiding Member—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner(s). In this case, two complainants invested their hard-earned money in a Scheme floated by the petitioner-Green Gold Units which carried interest @ 12% p.a. It was an open ended scheme. It is the case of the complainants that when they approached the respondent(s) for payment of the same invested with interest after 3 years, it was not paid. Accordingly, a complaint was filed before the District Forum which was contested by the petitioner-company, stating that not all the directors are impleaded and hence the complaint was infructuous. Secondly, theirs was a Cottage Industry which was not covered by the Consumer Protection Act. Thirdly, as a result of a police case, the relevant documents were seized and hence they were not in a position to ascertain whether the complainants had deposited any money with them. The District Forum, after analyzing the records and evidence and also hearing the parties, directed in CC No.161/06 that the maturity amount of Rs. 1,92,400 be paid with 9% interest from the date of complaint till the date of realization and in CC No.373/06, Rs.3,86,325 be paid with interest @ 9% from the date of complaint till realization, along with token amount of Rs. 500 as compensation and Rs. 500 as cost in each case.

2. The State Commission, after hearing parties, dismissed the appeal and gave 3 months time to the petitioner to comply with the order of the District Forum which was not complied with. Hence this revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the directors of the company are not personally liable for the debts of the company mistakes committed or default committed by the company in non-payment of the depositors’ money. No maturity date has been mentioned for these Gold Units. To a query from us, learned counsel submits that complainant has a right to claim refund at any time during the currency of these units. The payment of the money deposited as listed in the complaint and as mentioned in the District Forum’s order is not disputed. The rate of interest is also not disputed. Finally, non-payment is also not disputed. The District Forum has done a good job in lifting the corporate veil and making the directors responsible for payment which has been confirmed by the State Commission. ‘Service’ defined under the Consumer Protection Act includes, financial services.

4. As we do not see any material irregularity or legal lacuna in the order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this revision petition is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.

*******