National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shriram Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd. vs Raghachand Associates on 10 March, 2021
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 830 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 13/12/2019 in Appeal No. 1324/2017 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SHRIRAM CHITS (K) PVT. LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGER, AKSHODAYA NO. 259/31, 1ST FLOOR, 10TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE-560027 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAGHACHAND ASSOCIATES REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. B.N. RADHAKRISHNA, S/O. LATE NANJUDAIAH, NO. 179, 5TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARINGAR, ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 831 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 13/12/2019 in Appeal No. 1325/2017 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SHRIRAM CHITS (K) PVT. LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGER, AKSHODAYA NO. 259/31, 1ST FLOOR, 10TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE-560027 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAGHACHAND ASSOCIATES REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. B.N. RADHAKRISHNA, S/O. LATE NANJUDAIAH, NO. 179, 5TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARINGAR, ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 832 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 13/12/2019 in Appeal No. 1326/2017 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SHRIRAM CHITS (K) PVT. LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGER, AKSHODAYA NO. 259/31, 1ST FLOOR, 10TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE-560027 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAGHACHAND ASSOCIATES REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. B.N. RADHAKRISHNA, S/O. LATE NANJUDAIAH, NO. 179, 5TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARINGAR, ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 833 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 13/12/2019 in Appeal No. 1327/2017 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SHRIRAM CHITS (K) PVT. LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGER, AKSHODAYA NO. 259/31, 1ST FLOOR, 10TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE-560027 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAGHACHAND ASSOCIATES REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. B.N. RADHAKRISHNA, S/O. LATE NANJUDAIAH, NO. 179, 5TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARINGAR, ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 834 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 13/12/2019 in Appeal No. 1328/2017 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SHRIRAM CHITS (K) PVT. LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGER, AKSHODAYA NO. 259/31, 1ST FLOOR, 10TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE-560027 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAGHACHAND ASSOCIATES REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. B.N. RADHAKRISHNA, S/O. LATE NANJUDAIAH, NO. 179, 5TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARINGAR, ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 835 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 13/12/2019 in Appeal No. 1329/2017 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SHRIRAM CHITS (K) PVT. LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGER, AKSHODAYA NO. 259/31, 1ST FLOOR, 10TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE-560027 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAGHACHAND ASSOCIATES REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. B.N. RADHAKRISHNA, S/O. LATE NANJUDAIAH, NO. 179, 5TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARINGAR, ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 836 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 13/12/2019 in Appeal No. 1330/2017 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SHRIRAM CHITS (K) PVT. LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGER, AKSHODAYA NO. 259/31, 1ST FLOOR, 10TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE-560027 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAGHACHAND ASSOCIATES REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. B.N. RADHAKRISHNA, S/O. LATE NANJUDAIAH, NO. 179, 5TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARINGAR, ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 10 Mar 2021 ORDER
ORDER
Taken up through video conferencing.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist at admission.
Perused the material on record.
2. These 07 petitions have been filed in challenge to the common Order dated 13.12.2019 of the State Commission.
In the interest of justice, to provide fair opportunity to the petitioner, to settle the matter on merit, the delay in filing the petitions is condoned.
3. In the matter in question here, the respondent in all 07 petitions (the 'complainant') had paid installments to the petitioner (the 'opposite party') in the latter's non-prized chits. Even after termination of the chit, the opposite party did not refund the amount(s) / installments paid. The opposite party adjusted the amount(s) / installments paid to other group(s) and ticket no.(s).
4. The complainant went before the District Forum on 14.12.2015. The District Forum made its Order dated 12.04.2017 on contest. It held deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and ordered for refund of the amount(s) / installments paid with interest (para 28 of its Order).
The State Commission vide its Order dated 13.12.2019 dismissed the appeal.
5. The District Forum has passed a well-appraised detailed Order.
The State Commission, for reasons recorded, has concurred with the findings of the District Forum.
No palpable crucial error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require de novo re-appreciation in revision, is visible.
No jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored, is visible.
On the face of it, nothing warrants interference with the impugned Order of the State Commission in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.
6. Learned counsel argued that the complainant is not a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act 1986 (corresponding Section 2(7)(ii) of the Act 2019) and accordingly its complaint(s) were not maintainable before the consumer disputes redressal agencies established under the Act 1986 (or established under the Act 2019).
However, under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act 1986 a "consumer" is a "person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised" (corresponding Section 2(7)(ii) of the Act 2019).
'person', as defined in Section 2(1)(m) of the Act 1986 includes a firm whether registered or not, an HUF, a co-operative society and every other association of persons whether or not registered under The Societies Registration Act, 1860. The word "includes" is significant. It does not connote that the definition of "person" is exhaustive and is limited to the juridical persons mentioned therein. As such, the complainant is decidedly a "person" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(m) of the Act 1986. (It has now been made explicit in Section 2(31) of the Act 2019 that "person" includes "any artificial juridical person, not falling within any of the preceding sub-clauses".) Section 2(1)(b)(i) of the Act 1986 includes a "consumer" under the definition of "complainant" (corresponding Section 2(5)(i) of the Act 2019).
Per se, the complainant, who availed of the services of the opposite party for a consideration, is a consumer of the opposite party, and its complaint(s) are maintainable before the consumer disputes redressal agencies established under the Act 1986 (and now established under the Act 2019).
It is relevant and material that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka's Order dated 16.11.2015 in W.P. No. 17872 of 2014 (GM-CFA) records that the learned counsel for the petitioner (the complainant herein) pointed out that there may be remedy available to the petitioner before the consumer forum as held by the National Commission in Narinder Kumar and Ors. vs. Sanjiv Kumar III (2001) CPJ 27 (NC); the Hon'ble High Court ordered that if the petitioner approaches the appropriate forum within a period of two weeks the question of limitation may be overlooked in addressing the proceedings by the competent forum. It is also relevant and material that in the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court the respondent (the opposite party herein) had not made any objection in respect of maintainability of the complainant's complaint(s) before the consumer disputes redressal agencies established under the Act 1986.
7. Learned counsel also argued that irrelevant immaterial evidence has been considered by the District Forum.
However, a perusal of the District Forum's Order of 12.04.2017 shows that it is admitted to by the opposite party that the complainant had paid the installments in question in its non-prized chits and that the non-prized amount(s)/installments paid had not been refunded and that the amount(s)/installments had been adjusted to other group(s) and ticket no.(s).
8. Not refunding the non-prized amount(s)/installments paid even after termination of the chit qualifies as 'deficiency in service' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) & (o) of the Act 1986 (corresponding Section 2(11) & (42) of the Act 2019).
9. The 07 revision petitions, being bereft of merit, are dismissed.
10. The opposite party through its chief executive is directed to make good the award(s) made by the District Forum in the instant 07 cases within six weeks from today, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution as per the law.
11. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the petitioner / opposite party, its chief executive and its learned counsel, and to the respondent / complainant, as well as to the District Commission, within one week from today.
...................... DINESH SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER