ARUN SAXENA Vs. ANIL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant is the petitioner before us complaining deficiency of service qua the respondent-opposite party. He filed a complaint before the District Forum. Case of the complainant is that he deposited various amounts with the respondent which he was entitled to get back with interest @ 72% per annum. District Forum found it was not a case of any deposit rather there were loan transactions between the complainant and the opposite party. Holding that in the circumstances of the case, complainant could not be a consumer, District Forum dismissed the complaint.

(2.) Aggrieved, complainant went in appeal before the State Commission. He remained absent. However, after examining the whole matter State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum. It was held that it was not a case of any fixed deposit but loan transaction between the parties. We do not find it is a fit case to exercise out jurisdiction under clause (b) of Sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. Revision Petition is dismissed.