The Court dismissed four writ petitions filed by the Registrar of Chits against State Commission orders directing payment to complainants. The Court held the writ petitions were barred by Section 21(b) revision remedy and noted the relief sought was already granted.
Writ petitions dismissed without costs; no order as to costs passed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.10456, 10457, 10458 and 10459 of 2005
Dated:01.02.2012
Between
Sub-Registrar as Registrar of Chits, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad.
…Petitioner
and
Kum.V.Usha Chowdary, And others.
…Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.10456, 10457, 10458 and 10459 of 2005
COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)
These four writ petitions are filed against a common order dated 07.04.2005 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (State Commission) in four different First Appeals filed by the petitioner under Section 17(1)(a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act). As common question is involved, they are being disposed of by this common order.
Taking W.P.No.10456 of 2005 as the illustrative one, the brief fact of the matter is as follows. The first respondent (hereafter, the complainant) joined chit fund run by respondent Nos.2 and 3. The chit value is Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant paid the instalments regularly. After completion of the chit period, the amount of Rs.94,000/- due was not paid. Respondent No.2 registered the byelaws with the Registrar of Chits, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad (petitioner herein). Being unsuccessful to get the chit amount, the complainant filed C.D.No.192 of 2003 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – II, Hyderabad. The same was opposed by all the opposite parties including the petitioner herein. On considering the merits of the case, by an order dated 21.11.2003, the District Forum directed the Chit Fund Company to pay the chit amount with interest at 12% per annum to the complainant, failing which the Registrar of Chits was directed to make payment of FDR value of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed F.A.No.118 of 2005 before the State Commission. Inter alia, it was contended that the registration of the chit with the Registrar of Chits is a mandatory requirement; the Registrar performs the statutory functions under the Andhra Pradesh Chit Funds Act, 1971 (since repealed by the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (Central Act No.40 of 1982)), and that the deficiency of service cannot be attributed to the Registrar. These contentions did not find favour, and the State Commission dismissed the FA, aggrieved by which, the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked. Be it noted, in all other three cases the factual background is same, and the petitioner was directed to pay the FDR value to the complainant before the District Forum.
While admitting these matters, this Court suspended the
impugned order of the State Commission. Subsequently, on 06.03.2006, the Division Bench vacated the interim order. The said order reads as under.
Keeping in view the fact that the non-applicants had successfully convinced the District Consumer Redressal Forum-II, Hyderabad to entertain their claim and the State Commission did not find any patent illegality in the order passed by the District Forum, we are of the view that there is no reasonable ground to continue the ad interim order dated 29-4-2005. The decree passed by the District Forum for payment of Rs.50,000/- to the applicant with interest is akin to a money decree passed by the civil court. Therefore, keeping in view the settled law that the appellate court will be extremely loath to stay the money decree, we deem it proper to vacate the interim order dated 29-4-2005 passed in WPMP No.13524 of 2005. Ordered accordingly.
The applicant is allowed two weeks time to return the amount to the respondent – complainant.
The Government Pleader for Revenue submits that when a chit is commenced by a registered chit fund company, law requires to deposit the chit value as security; the said security is required to cover all the members of the chit, and therefore, if the Registrar of Chit is directed to pay the entire amount to one member, the other members would suffer. He, however, does not dispute or deny that in obedience to the orders of this Court dated 06.03.2006 in W.P.M.P.No.13524 of 2005, the petitioner herein has already encashed the security deposit with him and paid the FDR value to the complainant.
The Consumer Protection Act is a special statute intended to provide better protection to the interest of the consumers. It is an enactment, which deals with redressal mechanism at three levels. Any person aggrieved by the order of the State Commission exercising original or appellate jurisdiction has an effective remedy of revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the writ petition is barred (Om Prakash
Saini v DCM Ltd .[1] ) . Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter. Further, the Government Pleader fairly submits that the amount as directed by the District Forum as well as the State Commission has already been paid to the first respondent (complainant). In that view of the matter, nothing survives for adjudication. We leave the question raised herein open to be decided in appropriate case.
The Writ Petitions, with the above observations, shall stand dismissed without any order as to costs.
_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)
________________________________ (G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)
01.02.2012 vs
[1] (2010) 11 SCC 622
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the State Commission's order is maintainable under Article 226 when an effective remedy of revision under Section 21(b) exists.
Whether the Court should interfere given that the amounts directed by lower forums have already been paid.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Om Prakash Saini v DCM LtdDistinguished¶22
(2010) 11 SCC 622 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sub-Registrar as Registrar of Chits, Kavadiguda, Secunderabad
Kum.V.Usha Chowdary
V.V.S.RAO
G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
