NARINDER KUMAR Vs. SANJIV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Opposite parties in a complaint filed by the respondent (complainant), are the petitioner before us. Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum complaining that he was a member of the chit fund floated by the petitioner and after his turn came to receive the amount of contribution made by him towards chit fund he was denied to receive the amount. Complainant lost before the District Forum but succeeded before the State Commission. There are three petitioners. First two petitioners are partners of third petitioner - M/s. Surya Financiers which was running the chit fund. As per scheme of the chit fund every month members were to contribute Rs. 5,000/- and the amount of contribution was Rs. 1,25,000/-. Members used to bid and the persons offering to take the lesser amount used to get the same and the remaining amount was distributed among the members after deduction of the commission of the petitioners. Commission was stated to be 5%. Complainant paid all 25 instalments and became entitled to the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- on maturity. Since he was not paid this amount he filed complaint before the District Forum. Preliminary objections were taken by the opposite parties (petitioners) that the complaint was barred by time, and that was bad for mis-joinder. On merit it was said that the amount of chit fund that was due to the complainant, was adjusted on the account of his father who had taken loan from the petitioners in his own name and in the name of M/s. Highway Goods Carrier of which he was the proprietor. It is also stated that there were other chits which were being subscribed to the family members of the complainant. District Forum found that under Section 64 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982 the complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and dismissed the same. On appeal filed by the complainant it was held that there was no bar to the jurisdiction of the FORA under the Act and that the amount of chit due to the complainant could not have been adjusted against the loan taken by his father. State Commission, therefore, allowed the appeal and directed that the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- be paid to the complainant with 18% interest thereon with effect from the date of maturity till payment. Cost of Rs. 2,000/- was also awarded to the complainant.

(2.) Aggrieved of the order of the State Commission, the opposite parties have filed this revision petition before us. Nothing has been said if the complaint before the District Forum was barred by limitation or how it was bad for mis-joinder of parties. It is contended that there is specific mode of resolving disputes between the members of the chit fund or the members and the management of chit fund and that District Forum rightly held that it has no jurisdiction in the matter. Reference was made to Section 64 of Chit Fund Act which reads as under :

(3.) No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any dispute referred to in Sub-section (1)." 3. It cannot be disputed that the Registrar could arbitrate on the dispute as mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 64 of the Chit Fund Act and the present case could be said to be covered under those provisions. Under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act) provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. There is nothing in Section 64 of the Chit Fund Act which bars the jurisdiction of District Forum, State Commission or National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act. The bar is on the Civil Court. The concept of Civil Court is well understood. The Forum under the Consumer Protection Act is not a Civil Court though it has trappings of Civil Court. It is a quasi-judicial body. The Act is benevolent legislation and its provisions are to be given liberal consideration. We cannot put restriction on the jurisdiction of the Forum established under the Act not to decide disputes arising under the Chit Fund Act, 1982 in view of Sub-section (3) of Section 64 of that Act, though the Consumer Protection Act does not make changes in the law. We, therefore, reject the contention of the petitioners that forum under the Consumer Protection Act is prohibited from taking cognizance of any dispute arising under the Chit Fund Act, 1982 and that the dispute could be entertained by Registrar under that Act relating to disputes covered by Section 64 of that Act. State Commission has gone to the extent of holding that the case of the complainant was not covered under the provisions of Chit Fund Act, 1982. We, however, need not go into that question as we are of the opinion that District Forum under the Act had jurisdiction to decide the dispute raised before it.