VIJAY TRADING COMPANY Vs. CHANDRABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.12.2001 passed in case No.165/2001 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, East Nimar (for short the "district Forum") whereby the complaint for deficiency in service in not making the payment of the amount of Rs.30,000/- deposited in Fixed Deposit was allowed with an order to pay the amount of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.300/- as costs of the proceedings.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent was not a consumer as he lended money on loan and it being a case of recovery of loan, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable.

(3.) The submission cannot be accepted as it was a transaction of deposit with the appellant as appellants were carrying on and investing the money in financing and other commercial purposes. The question was considered by this Commission in details in Appeal No.789/2000, Rajesh and Anr. V/s. Amirchand, decided on 8.11.2000, wherein this Commission after referring to the definition of a promissory note in Sec.4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 , observed that a "promissory note" is an instrument in writing (not being a bank-note or a current note) containing an unconditional undertaking, signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument. On the other, such a document is receipt as defined under Sec.2 (23) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short the "stamp Act") which signifies or imports the acknowledgement of the amount deposited, therefore, it cannot be assumed or inferred from the document that the complainant paid the amount to the appellant as loan, hence, the contention that the remedy for the complainant was to institute the civil suit for realization of the loan amount cannot be accepted.