—Order— Against the order dated 19.4.89, passed by the District Forum, Kota, in complaint case No. 23/1989 M/s. Sahara India Savings and Investment Corporation Ltd., Sector Office, Kothri, Gordhanpura Chowraha, Kota (Raj.) ("the Company") has filed this revision petition though captioned as appeal. The District Forum, Kota has held that it has jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint filed against the company by the complainants-non-petitioners purporting to be under sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986) ("the Act"). 2. The the complaint dated 3.3.89, it was alleged that the opposite-party-petitioner by alluring the members of the public entrapped them and enrolled them as its members. At the time of enrolements, an assurance was given that when the amount will be required, it will be repaid. The agent of the company came to collect the amounts from the complainants for about one year in the court premises but for the last two months from the date of the filing of the complaint but thereafter he did not come. There was news that the company is going in liquidation. Eight days before, the agent was seen going in the court premises and so the complainants called him and enquired from him the reasons for not coming and asked him to make payments to which he refused. It has been alleged that the Company cannot refuse to make payment of the amounts deposited by them. 3. It was prayed that the opposite party may be ordered to return/ refund the deposited amount and appropriate action may be taken against the Company. This complaint was jointly presented by the depositors-complainants. It may be mentioned that they have been impleaded as respondents (non-petitioners) in the revision petition. 4. Notice was issued to the company. It filed its version of the case dated 4-4-89, contesting the complaint on various grounds. 5. Three preliminary objections were raised on behalf of the opposite-party-petitioner; (1) that the complaint does not relate to the "goods" and "service" as defined in the Act. The complainants are not consumers and they have no locus standi to file the complaint. For these reasons, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint under the Act; (2) that the complainants are depositors in the Savings Deposit Scheme of the company and there is separate agreement between each of the complainants and the compay. The complainants are not consumers and they have no locus standi to file the complaint. For these reasons, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint under the Act; (2) that the complainants are depositors in the Savings Deposit Scheme of the company and there is separate agreement between each of the complainants and the compay. As such, the complainants are not entitled to any relief, for, they are bound by the terms of the agreement. As the complainants and the company both are bound by the terms of the agreement, no relief can be granted contrary to the terms contained in the respective agreements; (3) that there is a provision in the written contract between the complainants and the company that in case of any dispute between them, for the settlement of the dispute, the matter will be referred to the arbitrator to be appointed by the Company for decision and, therefore, the District Forum, cannot hear the complaint and jurisdiction in that of civil court. 6. On merits, the facts stated in the complaint were denied. At present, we are not concerned with the merits. 7. A rejoinder was filed by the complainants refuting the preliminary objections and also the averments made in the complaint. 8. The District Forum heard the arguments on the preliminary objections and held that the District Forum has jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint of the complainants and in this view of the matter, the preliminary objections raised by the company were over-ruled. It may be stated here that the main reason that prevailed with the District Forum in repelling the preliminary objections was that the grievance of the complamants is with respect to the improper accounts maintained by the company. 9. Before us, the complainants-non-petitioners did not appear and, therefore, we were left with no alternative but to hear the learned counsel for the opposite-party-petitioner. Mr. Onkar Singh Lakhawat, Advocate for the petitioner has reiterated the very same three preliminary objections which were raised before the District Forum, Kota. Firstly, the argued that the complainants and the company are governed by the contract which the complainants had entered with the company and in this case, there is no question of any service being rendered by the Company to the complainants. Firstly, the argued that the complainants and the company are governed by the contract which the complainants had entered with the company and in this case, there is no question of any service being rendered by the Company to the complainants. It may be stated that the District Forum was of the opinion that the business of the Company constituted banking as the company collected the amounts, agreed to pay interest on them and after the expiry of the fixed time, it is required to repay the amounts with interest to the persons who have deposited the amounts and as banking has been included in the definition of service mentioned in sec. 2(l)(o) of the Act, the aforesaid acts done by the Company fall under the category of the banking which is included in the definition of the service. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite-party petitioner invited our attention to the definition of banking given in sec. 5(b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1949) which is as under :- "(b) "banking" means the accepting for, the purpose of lending or investment, of deposits of money from the public, repayable on demand or otherwise and withdrawal by cheque, draft, order or otherwise." Banking Company has been defined in sec. 5(c) of the Act of 1949. We may usefully refer to sec. 7 of the Act of 1949, which is as follows :— "7. Use of words "bank", "banker", "banking" or "banking company".—(1) No company other than a banking company shall use as part of its name any of the words "bank", "banker" or "banking" and no company shall carry on the business of banking in India unless it uses as part of its name atleast one of such words. (2) No firm, individual or group of individuals shall, for the purpose of carrying on any business, use as part of its or his name any of the words "bank", "banking" or "banking company". (3) Nothing in this section shall apply to— (a) a subsidiary of a banking company formed for one or more of the purposes mentioned in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 19, whose name indicates that it is a subsidiary of that banking company; (b) any association of banks formed for protection of their mutual interests and registered under sec. (3) Nothing in this section shall apply to— (a) a subsidiary of a banking company formed for one or more of the purposes mentioned in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 19, whose name indicates that it is a subsidiary of that banking company; (b) any association of banks formed for protection of their mutual interests and registered under sec. 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)." It was submitted in this connection that the company has floated some types of saving deposit scheme on some terms and conditions which are contained in the agreement between the parties. They are in the nature of cumulative Deposit Account, Golden Deposit Account, Golden Daily Deposit Account, Gold head. Cash Certificate, Family Welfare Account etc. The person who deposits the amount in any of the schemes has to fill the blank form. The amounts so deposited are returned with interest after the expiry of the stipulated period in the agreement form. 10. The company was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on August 7, 1987. This is evidenced by Certificate No. 8909 issued by the Registrar of Companies, UP., Kanpur. Under the memorandum of Articles, it has to abide by the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India On the basis of the decisions reported in A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 564, A.I.R. 1967 Cal. 666 and A.I.R. 1961 Madras 8, learned counsel pressed that the activities carried on by the Company are non-banking activities and as such it cannot be said that the company does the business of banking as defined in sec. 5(b) of the Act of 1949 and for that matter, therefore, it does not renders any service to the deposit as defined in sec. 2(l)(o) of the Act. The complainants are depositors. The investment of amounts have been made in the scheme of the company. The amounts so deposited/invested will be re-paid with interest in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Having considered the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Sahara India Savings and Investment Corporation Ltd. (A public company limited by shares), we are of opinion that the company does not do the business of banking as envisaged by sec. 5(b) of the Act of 1949. Having considered the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Sahara India Savings and Investment Corporation Ltd. (A public company limited by shares), we are of opinion that the company does not do the business of banking as envisaged by sec. 5(b) of the Act of 1949. The facts that the Company accepts the deposits under the various schemes, it pays interest and repays the amounts after the stipulated period i.e. after maturity, do not constitute banking and, therefore, it cannot be said that the company renders any service to the complainants who have deposited the amounts under the schemes in terms of the agreement entered into between the complainants and the opposite-party. In these circumstances, the question of deficiency as defined in sec. 2(1)(g) of the Act does not arise. It is not the case of the complainants that the company has not paid the amount after the expiry of the period stipulated for. We reverse the finding of the District Forum on the first preliminary objection and hold that the complainants cannot invoke the provisions of the Act against the company. 11. The second preliminary objection raised by the opposite-party before the District Forum was that the complainants are bound by the terms of the contract and in variation thereof or in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement, they cannot maintain the complaint. The argument in this connection is that they can demand repayment of the deposited amounts only after the expiry of the period stipulated between the complainants and the company. The company will return the amounts deposited with interest after the period which is mentioned in the application form for deposit expires and, therefore, according to the terms of the contract, no proceedings could be initiated and provisions of the Act could not be invoked. The complainants have prayed that the amounts deposited by them with the company may be ordered to be refunded. The reason given by the District Forum in this regard is that when they have any grievance, they can file the complaint. For the refund of the amounts contrary to the term of the contract, the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked. 12. The reason given by the District Forum in this regard is that when they have any grievance, they can file the complaint. For the refund of the amounts contrary to the term of the contract, the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked. 12. Third preliminary objection raised before the District Forum was that it was agreed between the parties that in case of any dispute, the matter shall be referred to the arbitrator to be appointed by the Company for settling the dispute and, therefore, the complainants could not file the complaint under the Act for the refund of the amounts deposited by them. It may be stated that the Act is a Special Act and it provides for cheap and expeditious remedy. A contention was raised in Union of India Vs. Nilesh Agarwal (Revision Petition No. 1/89, decided on Sept. 14, 1989, by the National Commission)(l) that in view of the existence of the provision for arbitration, the remedies provided under the Act cannot be invoked by the aggrieved subscriber. While repelling the contention, the National Commission held that having regard to the scope, object and purpose of the Act, which is special statute subsequently enacted by Parliament specifically for the creation of machinery for granting cheap and speedy redressal to aggrieved consumers. It may be mentioned that in Union of Indias case (supra) the National Commission did not express any final opinion on this aspect, for, that ground was not raised before the District Forum in either of the preliminary objections set out in the application filed before it nor was "the point considered by the State Commission. However, in a subsequent decision this point was specifically considered in Commercial Officer, Office of the Telecommunication, District Manager, Patna Vs. Bihar State Warehousing Corporation (First Appeal No. 2/88, decided on Oct. 18, 1989 by the National Commission)(2). It was ruled that the existence of a remedy by way of arbitration does not preclude an aggrieved party-consumer from invoking the provisions of the Act for the redressal of his grievances. 13. In our opinion, the District Forum was right in holding that the clause of arbitration in the agreement will not preclude the complainants from filing the complaint under the Act. 14. As we have reversed the findings on the first two preliminary objections, recorded by the District Forum, we are constrained to allow the revision petition. 15. 13. In our opinion, the District Forum was right in holding that the clause of arbitration in the agreement will not preclude the complainants from filing the complaint under the Act. 14. As we have reversed the findings on the first two preliminary objections, recorded by the District Forum, we are constrained to allow the revision petition. 15. The revision petition is allowed and the order dated 19-4-89 passed in Complaint Case No. 23/89 by the District Forum, Kota is set aside. As nobody has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties, there will be no order as to costs. 16. Order pronounced on October 18, 1989.