Consumer protection covers fixed-deposit investors, and consumer forum jurisdiction survives parallel RBI Act proceedings.

Fixed-deposit arrangements with a finance company were treated as a service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because depositors hire a repayment-and-interest facility for consideration, and default in repayment constitutes deficiency in service. The consumer forum's jurisdiction was not ousted by proceedings or orders under section 45QA(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, because consumer remedies operate in addition to other statutory remedies unless expressly barred. The contractual nexus was recognised where deposits were routed through authorised dealers and fixed deposit receipts recorded the essential terms. Financial crunch was not accepted as a legal basis to defer repayment, as the obligation to repay fixed deposits remains binding according to its terms.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether persons who placed fixed deposits with the finance company were consumers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; (ii) whether the order of the Company Law Board under section 45QA(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 ousted the jurisdiction of the consumer forum; (iii) whether there was no privity of contract between the finance company and the depositors; and (iv) whether the finance company was entitled to more time for repayment on the plea of financial crunch.

Issue (i): whether persons who placed fixed deposits with the finance company were consumers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Analysis: The definition of consumer under section 2(1)(d) is of wide amplitude and includes persons who hire or avail of services for consideration. A deposit scheme offering interest and repayment of principal is a service arrangement for consideration, and default in repayment amounts to deficiency in service. The deposits made with the finance company therefore fell within the protective scope of the Act.

Conclusion: Yes. The depositors were consumers within section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in favour of the respondents.

Issue (ii): whether the order of the Company Law Board under section 45QA(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 ousted the jurisdiction of the consumer forum

Analysis: The Act provides an additional remedy, and its jurisdiction is not excluded unless barred by clear legislative command. The existence of proceedings under the Reserve Bank of India Act did not take away the right of an aggrieved consumer to seek redress before the consumer forum.

Conclusion: No. The consumer forum's jurisdiction remained available and the complaints were maintainable, in favour of the respondents.

Issue (iii): whether there was no privity of contract between the finance company and the depositors

Analysis: The deposits were routed through authorised dealers, accepted by the finance company, and fixed deposit receipts were issued in the names of the depositors. Those receipts embodied the essential terms of the arrangement, including amount, tenure, repayment date, and interest. On those facts, the contractual nexus could not be denied.

Conclusion: No. Privity of contract existed between the parties, against the appellant.

Issue (iv): whether the finance company was entitled to more time for repayment on the plea of financial crunch

Analysis: A fixed-deposit obligation is binding according to its terms, and inability to pay because of liquidity constraints does not extinguish the duty to repay. The plea of financial crunch was not a legal ground to postpone payment.

Conclusion: No. The plea for additional time was rejected, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on all substantial grounds and the orders directing repayment with interest and costs were upheld, with litigation expenses imposed on the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A fixed-deposit arrangement inviting money for interest-bearing repayment is a service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and a defaulting financer cannot defeat consumer jurisdiction or repayment obligations by relying on Company Law Board proceedings, absence of privity, or financial inability.

---