JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal by the complainant against the order dated 23.5.2000 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun dismissing the complaint of the complainant on the around of jurisdiction. At the very outset we want to say that jurisdiction is to be decided on the plaint or complaint allegation. For that, the written statement is not to be seen. Secondly to succeed in the case is different thing. If the complainant is unable to prove his case, his case will fail but on the allegations of the complaint, it will be decided whether the Forum has jurisdiction or not. Initially it cannot be decided that after-all on merits, the complaint will fail. 2. The facts of the case are that the complainant filed this complaint alleging that for the past several years with a view to boost its sales M/s. Lovely Stores, Main Bazar, Rishikesh had been collecting security deposit amounts ranging from Rs. 500/- to several thousands depending upon the paying financial capacity of its potential customers. On the security deposit amounts of the customers the stores credited every month an interest amount (ranging from 1 % to 2%) in the note-book/passbook of the customers. Against the interest amounts credited to their accounts, the following options were given to the customers : 1. To purchase the goods from the stores; 2. To collect the interest amount partially in cash and partially in the form of goods; 3. To allow the interest amount to be retained by the stores and added to the security deposit amount; 4. To collect the interest amount partially in cash and the balance amount retained by the stores for adding to the security deposit amount; 5. To collect the interest amount in cash. 3. This specifically shows that there was a deposit scheme. Interest was to be paid and the parties agreed that the passbook has also been issued. Thus, it is clear that the opposite party was doing banking service. He may not be a recognised bank. He may be a private bank but definitely he has not taken any loan from the complainant. He was getting certain deposits out of which some profit and interest was to be given to the complainant. Thus, it is clear that the opposite party was doing banking service. He may not be a recognised bank. He may be a private bank but definitely he has not taken any loan from the complainant. He was getting certain deposits out of which some profit and interest was to be given to the complainant. Thus, the principle of banking service has definitely come out from the allegations of the complainant and now it is settled principle of law that deficiency in banking service is also within the jurisdiction of Consumer Protection Act. It is fantastic that the opposite parties have under taken the deposit. They did not sale any goods because they have got no store. They are not paying any interest, they are not refunding the deposits made and are saying : "Go away, we will not pay. Go to the Civil Court and claim your money:" After all a poor person who has deposited some money for some benefits must get relief and for the purpose of relief in the Consumer Protection Act, if the respondent has failed to give the services promised for, the complainant is a consumer. The ruling referred by the respondent reported in 1994(1) CPR Page 459, C. Narsimha Rao v. K. R. Neelakandan, shall not apply to the facts of the case because this is not a case where simple money is tried to be recovered arising out of some contract for construction of house or may be simple recovery of money. The order passed by the learned Forum is illegal and is liable to be quashed. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The order dated 23.5.2000 passed by 'the learned Forum is hereby quashed. The learned Forum is directed to decide the case afresh' on merits after affording the parties reasonable opportunities to lead evidence- and to be heard.