B.INDIRA vs K.V.LAKSMI

THIS appeal has been filed against the order dated 14th June, 1996 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, The Nilgiris District at Udhagamandalam, in O.P. No. 16/1995. The appellant was one of the opposite parties before the District Forum.

THE case of the complainant before the District Forum was that she was regularly contributing the chit conducted by the Registered Partnership Firm by name M/s. Amman Chit Corporation (Regd. No. 25/87), in which the opposite party was one of the partners. THE complainant had added that the opposite parties had closed down their business abruptly without the knowledge of the complainant and failed to pay the amount due to the complainant, along with the dividend. THE complainant had also alleged that she was not allowed to take part in the auction. Hence, she prayed for orders for the payment of the amount subscribed by her, along with interest and dividend. The District Forum, which conducted enquiry, after hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing the records, has held that the complainant was entitled to get from the opposite Parties, the amount subscribed by her, along with interest at the rate of 18% and has also awarded nominal compensation. Hence, this appeal.

Now, in this appeal, the appellant has contended that the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain and enquire into a complaint in matters relating to Chit Fund transactions in view of Section 64 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982. There is much force in the contention of the appellant. This Commission, in the case of M/s. Selvam Chit Funds v. Alagu Sundaram, reported in II (1996) CPJ 437, has held that matters which will come within the purview of Section 64 of the Chit Fund Act, must be referred to the Registrar of Chits and they cannot be decided by the Consumer FORA, constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Similar view was taken also in the case of P. Balakrishnan v. The Managing Director, Shri Ram Chits and Investments (P) Limited, vide this Commission''s order in A.P. No. 223/96 dated 7th April, 1996.

IN this view of the matter, we have no hesitation to uphold the contention of the appellant that the complaint cannot be maintained and the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained in law. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. No costs. Appeal allowed.