KAPIL CHIT FUNDS PVT. LTD Vs. G. SURYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the concurrent finding and orders passed by the Fora below, the original opposite party, M/s. Kapil Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd., has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint filed by the complainant/respondent was partly allowed thereby directing the petitioner chit company to pay a sum of Rs. 95,000 towards chit amount by deducting instalment amount along with interest @ 15% p.a. besides a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards compensation and cost of the proceedings. Aggrieved by this said order, opposite party, M/s. Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. Filed an appeal before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which appeal has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 12.10.2011 after hearing the parties and giving detailed and cogent reasons as to why the appeal was dismissed.

(2.) The facts and circumstances which gave rise to the filing of the complaint and passing the order are amply noted in the order passed by the Fora below and need no repetition at our end. We have heard Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Advocate Counsel representing the petitioner company and have considered his submissions. He reiterated the plea that under the agreement, petitioner chit company had a lien over the amount of chit to which the complainant became entitled after bidding in the auction, and, therefore, company did no wrong in realising the amount from the complainant as the complainant had stood guarantor for the other member who failed to pay the amount. We have noted these submissions to be rejected only for the same reasons as has been noted down by the State Commission in its order. In any case, the above practice adopted by the petitioner company is 'unfair trade practice' within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We wish that the company desists from resorting to such practice in future also. The jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) being limited going by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 2 CPJ 19. It needs to be exercised only when there has been a jurisdictional error leading to miscarriage of justice. In the present case, we do not think that there is a case for interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000 to be deposited in the 'Consumer Legal Aid Account' of this Commission within a period of two weeks from today.