COUNCIL vs RAJALAKSHMI NITHI NIRUVANAM-/

DESIRABLE it is to pen down a common order in all these actions inasmuch as the issue arising for consideration is one and the same.

A.P. 850/1998 arises out of an order dated 14.10.1998 in S.R. No. 157/1997 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Salem. The complaint, which was instituted by one Senthil Kumar as against Shri Rajalakshmi Nithi Niruvanam, was rejected on the preliminary issue of want of jurisdiction on the part of the Forum below in the sense that in respect of chit transactions, remedy can be sought for by the affected/aggrieved complainant in a Court of Civil Jurisdiction. A.P. No. 851/1998 arises out of an order dated 15.10.1998 in O.P. No. 12/1998 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Salem. The complaint instituted by one Senthil Kumar as against Sri Rajalakshmi Nithi Niruvanam had been dismissed without costs holding that the Forum below had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint inasmuch as the dispute relatable to chit transactions cannot at all arise before the Fora constituted under the Act and the only Forum before which such a dispute can be raised is the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction.

A.P. No. 852/1998 arises out of an order dated 15.10.1998 in O.P. No. 13/1998 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Salem. One N. Sarojini instituted a complaint against Sri Rajalakshmi Nithi Niruvanam in respect of certain chit transactions she had with the said Niruvanam. The rationale for the dismissal of the complaint by the Forum below was that it had no jurisdiction inasmuch the dispute involved therein is relatable to chit transactions in respect of which a civil suit has to be instituted before the competent Civil Forum.

ALL the appeals as above had been instituted by the parties/complainants in person without engaging a Counsel on their behalf. In A.P. No. 850/1998, no notice to the respondent/opposite party was sent. In A.P. Nos. 851 and 852/1998, notices to the opposite party, it appears, were sent by the Registry. But the notices so sent to them were returned - ''not served''.

SERVICE of notice to the respondent/opposite party in all the actions is not necessary inasmuch the individual complaints before the Forum below had been disposed of either by way of rejection or dismissal on the preliminary question of jurisdiction. The individual complainants/appellants were also not present in Court today (February 1, 2002). We perused the materials placed on record. Of course, true it is, there were conflicting opinions aired by different State Commissions on the question of maintainability of complaints instituted before the Fora Constituted under the Act regarding disputes arising out of the chit transactions. The National commission in a recent decision authoritatively laid down the dictum that the Fora constituted under the Act has the necessary and requisite jurisdiction to entertain the complaint regarding disputes involved in chit transactions in the case of Narinder Kumar & Ors. v. Sanjiv Kumar, III (2001) CPJ 27 (NC). The rationale provided by the National Commission that the Fora constituted under the Act has the necessary and requisite jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of this nature is referred to in paragraph 3 of its order which gets reflected as below : "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 the question as we are of the opinion that District Forum under the Act had jurisdiction to decide the dispute raised before it."

THE decision of the National Commission as referred to above is applicable in all fours in all these actions as above. Following the decision of the National Commission as above, the orders of the Forum below in all the actions either rejecting or dismissing the complaints are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the Forum below for fresh disposal after restoring all the complaints to its file according to law. THE appeal is thus disposed of. Appeal disposed of.