The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Rajan Sharma, Member (Judicial) And Sh. Bimla Kumari, Member (Female) held that “service” as defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is inclusive of services like Banking, Financing etc.
Brief Facts:
In this case, the appellant, Mr. Birender Singh, convinced the respondent, Sh. Nikhil Tyagi, who had no income, to invest Rs.1 Lakh with him. The appellant promised a monthly profit of 4% on the investment. The respondent invested the amount on 22.05.2012, and initially, the appellant paid the profit as agreed. However, from August 2013 onwards, the appellant stopped making the payments. The respondent made multiple attempts to contact the appellant but received no response. Despite requesting the return of the invested amount, the appellant provided evasive replies, even in response to a legal notice. Consequently, the respondent filed a complaint with the District Forum, seeking Rs.2 Lakhs in payment and Rs.1 Lakh in compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused, along with litigation charges.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellant submitted a written statement arguing that the complaint filed by the respondent, Sh. Nikhil Tyagi, was invalid as he was not a 'consumer' since he invested for profit. The appellant claimed to have made payments until April 2013, which were due in May 2013. They also returned partial payments from the principal amount upon request. The appellant had a 10% share in the firm, while Mr. Subhendu Das held 90%. The appellant argued the complaint was time-barred and that opposite party no.1 had no legal existence. They stated no agreement was made with the respondent, and the existing agreement lacked proper signatures. The appellant disagreed with the District Forum's decision and requested the setting aside of the order dated 14.05.2019.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent opposed the appeal and requested its dismissal, stating that it is an abuse and misuse of the legal process. It was argued the appellant has filed the appeal with malicious intent to harass and humiliate the respondent.
Observations by the Commission:
The commission while considering the issue of whether the respondent was not a consumer, the bench referred to the National Commission in Revision Petition No.563 of 2003 titled Mrs Anita Ahuja Vs. Banwari Lal Arora and others, Revision Petition No.564/2003 titled Ravi Ahuja V. Santosh Sachdeva and others and Revision Petition No.565/2003 titled Aditya Ahuja V. Shanti Rani and others decided on 14.07.2003, where the commission held that the definition of "service" includes activities such as banking and financing.
Further, the commission was of the view that the respondent had deposited Rs.2 lakhs with the appellant to earn interest, but despite the respondent's demand, the appellant did not return the amount. Therefore, the commission agreed with the District Forum’s decision to consider the respondent as a consumer.
The decision of the Commission:
The application was disposed of.
Case Title: Sh. Birender Singh vs Sh Nikhil Tyagi
Coram: Sh. Rajan Sharma, Member (Judicial) And Sh. Bimla Kumari, Member (Female)
Case No: First Appeal No.- FA/368/2019
Advocates of the Appellant: Mr Vijay Pal Singh, Advocate
Advocates of the Respondent: Mr Priyanka Tyagi, Advocate
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
