LexK. SAGAR, M.D., KIRAN CHIT FUND MUSHEERABAD versus A. BAL REDDY & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 9 S.C.R. 1129 'I' -- K. SAGAR, M.D., KIRAN CHIT FUND MUSHEERABAD A v. A. BAL REDDY & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 1498 of 2005) JUNE 11, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Jurisdiction - Dispute between Chit Fund and its prized subscriber - Jurisdiction of Consumer Forums - Held: The c issue of jurisdiction of Consumer Forum in entertaining dis- putes in question was raised before the State Consumer Com- mission but it was not considered by it - Revision Petition dismissed by National Consumer Commission even without referring its earlier decision on the issue - Hence, the matter D remitted to State Consumer Commission to decide the issue relating to jurisdiction. The question which arose for determination before this Court in this appeal was as to whether the Consumer E Forums have jurisdiction to entertain dispute between the Chit Fund and its subscriber/subscribers. Appellant-Chit Fund contended that the Consumer >- Forums have no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute be- - tween a chit fund and one of its prized subscribers or F between the prized subscribers. Respondents-subscribers submitted that this issue was not specifically raised before the Forums below and therefore should not be entertained. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1. It is not correct as contended by the re- spondent No. 1, the subscriber, that the question of juris- diction was not raised before the Consumer Forums. In 1129 H 1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R. A fact the State Commission observed that since the re- spondents before it i.e. functionaries of the chit fund were not consumers, the issue regarding jurisdiction cannot be adjudicated in the appeal before it. The National Com- mission unfortunately does not appear to have referred B to its earlier decision while dismissing the revision peti- tion. In the aforesaid background, this Court is of the view that the issue relating to jurisdiction has to be decided by the forums first. Hence, the impugned order of the Na- tional Commission confirming the order passed by the c State Commission is set aside and the matter is remitted to the State Commission to consider the question of ju- risdiction. (Paras - 7, 8 and 9) [1132-D,E,F & G] 2. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. (Para - 9) [1133-A] D CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1498 of 2005 From the final Order dated 12.4.2004 of the National Con- sumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revi- E sion Petition No. 1227 of 2001 F L. Roshmani (for M/s. P.S.N. & Co.) for the Appellant. A. Bal Reddy Respondent-in Person. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal .. Commission, New Delhi (in short the 'National Commission'). Before National Commission challenge was to the order passed G by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hydrabad (in short the 'State Commission'). By ·its order dated 19.6.2001 the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Complainant'). The District Forum II Hyderabad had dis- H missed the complaint filed by the complainant. - 'I K. SAGAR, M.D., KIRAN CHIT FUND MUSHEERABAD 1131 v. A. BAL REDDY [Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 2. Factual scenario giving rise to the revision before the A National Commission is as follows: The complainant joined as a member in Chit Fund Co. of which opposite party No. 1 is the Managing Director and oppo- site party No. 2 is the manager. The present appellant was run- B ning a chit for Rs.1 lakh with monthly p.ayment of Rs.5,000/- for 20 months in the year 1995. He was a prize bidder subscriber. He was paid Rs.60,000/- by cheque. The complainant defaulted after paying for 11 months from January, 1996. When the present appellant issued a notice to him demanding an amount of Rs.79,300/-, the complainant replied that out of the chit amount c of Rs. 70,000/-, the present appellant paid only Rs.60,000/- and the balance of Rs.10,000/-was payable to him with interest and that since he paid Rs.54,700/- already, he is ready to pay the balance of Rs.45,300/- in instalments. The complainant ap- r preached the District Forum for a direction to the opposite par- D ties to pay Rs.14,000/- to him.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.