1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 23.01.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra ( Aurangabad Circuit Bench) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.470 of 2017 in which order dated 30.03.2017 of Latur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no.162 of 2016 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 23.01.2019 of the State Commission.

2.       While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Appellant before the State Commission and  OP before the District Forum and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum.

3.       Notice was issued to the Respondent on 08.05.2019.  Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 12.01.2024 (Petitioner ) and 16.01.2024 (respondent ) respectively.

4.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that Complainant was the Member of the OP,  which was involved in the business of Banking and Insurance Service.  On 27.07.2013, complainant opened an account in the OP for the chit value of Rs.5.00 lakh having monthly subscription of Rs.10,000/-.  He paid the said subscription of Rs.10,000/- for 245 months i.e. upto September 2015.  However, due to financial problems, he could not deposit the instalments after September 2015.  It is the case of the complainant that on 23.02.2016, he filed application to the OP showing his readiness to deposit the outstanding amount of the instalments with penal charges but the said request was rejected by the letter dated 26.02.2016 of the OP and he was informed that his account has been closed.  Therefore, he demanded Rs.2,50,000/- which was in balance in his account from time to time.  The said amount was not given to him.  Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 30.03.2017 partly allowed the complaint of the Complainant.  Being aggrieved, the OP preferred an appeal before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 23.01.2019 dismissed the appeal of the OP.  Therefore, the Petitioner – OP is before this Commission now in the present RP.

5.       Petitioner(s) have challenged the said Order dated 23.01.2019 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

1. State Commission failed to appreciate that as per provisions of the Maharashtra Chit Funds Act, 1974 and by the Chit Funds Act, 1982, all the disputes between the Subscriber ( respondent ) and the Chit Company ( Petitioner ) could only be referred to and decided by the Registrar of Chit and no other Court has jurisdiction over the said dispute and thus the Consumer Courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute between the parties in defiance of Section 64 of Chit Funds Act, 1982.
2. State Commission failed to appreciate that as per the expressed provisions of Clause 16, 18 and 23 of the Chit Agreement, which was signed and executed between the Revisionist and the respondent and Clause 11 of the Chit Bye Laws, the Chit subscription of the respondent was liable to be revoked / cancelled by the Petitioner  when the respondent defaults in making the timely payment of the monthly chit subscription to the Petitioner whereupon only the actual amount paid by the respondent or the net subscription amount only shall be refunded to the respondent after deducting 5% of the total Chit amount as penalty for breach of the terms of the Chit Agreement and after clearing all the liabilities of the respondent towards the Petitioner Company both personal liability as well as for the chit for which he had stood surety / guarantor.

3. State Commission failed to appreciate that as per the terms of the surety form and the chit agreement, in case of default on the part of Sh.Abdul Raheman Jamir Mulani for which the respondent had stood as surety / guarantor, the Petitioner Company was within its right to deduct the outstanding amount from the chit amount of the respondent without giving any notice.  The said issue has been decided by the National Commission in the matter of M/s Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sri Payakarao Upendra.

4.  Infact, respondent was made aware of his liability in respect of the adjustment of the outstanding dues of Abdul Raheman Jamir Mulani at the time of offering the cheque of Rs.43,932/- but the same was refused to be accepted by the respondent.

5. State Commission failed to appreciate that after getting the chit prize amount, Abdul Raheman Jamir Mulani started defaulting in making payment of his monthly instalments and thus there was an outstanding amount of Rs.1,03,120/- including penal interest amount of Rs.2000/- in respect of his chit account which the respondent, as  surety was liable to clear. 

6. State Commission failed to appreciate that it cannot go beyond the terms of the agreement between the parties.  There was no need to give any prior communication in respect of default of Abdul Raheman Jamir Mulani to the respondent since after Abdul Raheman Jamir Mulani had obtained his chit prize amount, the respondent had voluntarily signed the agreement, thereby creating a lien in favour of the Petitioner in respect of the remaining dues of the chit account of Abdul Raheman Jamir Mulani, whereby the respondent had given complete authority to the Petitioner to deduct the entire outstanding dues of Abdul Raheman from his chit account without any condition of giving any prior notice.  The Petitioner cannot be faulted for not giving prior notice.

7. State Commission failed to appreciate that cheque of  Rs.43,932/- was physically offered to the respondent at the Branch office of the Petitioner when he was called upon to collect the same but same was not accepted for which now the respondent cannot blame the Petitioner nor any proof of refusal could be filed since the respondent had refused to sign any document in this regard.

8. State Commission failed to appreciate that respondent is not a consumer since the monthly chit subscription amounts to making the investment which is beyond the scope of the consumer courts and the entire consumer complaint did not disclose any cause of action. 

9. The mischievous and deliberate act on the part of the respondent to intentionally not disclose or bring to the notice of the lower forum his chit agreement or his continuous default in making the timely payment of the monthly chit subscription amount  or the fact that he had stood surety for another chit subscriber’s liability or that he had received the cheque from the Petitioner which he failed to accept, entitles the respondent to get the relief.

6.       Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

6.1     Learned counsel for the Petitioner apart from repeating the points which have been stated in para 5 argued that respondent had failed to prove his own case by leading any           evidence by way of affidavit or otherwise which is evident from the order sheet of the District Forum. 

6.2     Learned counsel for the Respondent argued that without respondent’s consent / approval, the Petitioner deducted Rs.1,03,120/-.  The said deduction was not justified by the Petitioner and they were ready to make payment of instalments but the Petitioner did not consider it.  Further, as per condition no. 18(b), the Petitioner was authorized to adjust the amount towards the liability without prior notice, whereas it was necessary for the Petitioner to atleast inform in writing to the respondent about the outstanding amount against Abdul Rahman about the balance amount for which no communication has been placed by the Petitioner.  Further, there is no evidence that Petitioner had sent cheque of the balance amount of Rs.43,932/- to the respondent and later rejected to issue. It is also argued that from the account statement of Abdul Rahman, the balance amount to his account his shown as Rs.4,17,652/-.  Lastly, it is argued that Respondent is a consumer.

7.       We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties.  In this case, there are concurrent findings of both the Fora Below against the Petitioner herein.  The basic contention of the Petitioner herein is that they have made deductions from the amount payable to the respondent of an amount which was due from another person, for whom the respondent has stood as guarantor. Respondent has contended that this was done without any intimation to him and without his consent and hence, Petitioner was not justified in making such deduction of Rs.1,03,120/-.  The State Commission has appropriately addressed the contention of the OP of complainant not being a consumer and we are in agreement with the findings of the State Commission on this issue.  As regards the balance in the account of the respondent and justification for deducting of Rs.1,03,120/- from the balance amount of the respondent, the State Commission has considered these issues at length. The extract of relevant portion of the order of the State Commission is reproduced below :

“Point No.2

          There are two main issues which are in dispute between the complainant and the opponent

a.       The amount which is in balance to his account

b.       The deduction of Rs.1,03,120/- from  his balance amount

As regards the amount which is balance to his account it reveals from the pass book produced by the complainant on record, the balance amount to his account Rs.2,50,000/- as on 19.09.2015. whereas as per the account statement produced by the opponent as on 31.12.2015 is Rs. 1,72,052/-, in fact from the perusal of account statement produced on record by the opponent, the balance amount as on 19.9.2015 appear to be Rs. 1,81,312/- However, as on 31.12.2015 there is a debit entry of Rs.9260/- whereby balance is reduced to Rs. 1,72,052/-. There is no explanation given as to why the amount of Rs.9.260/- is debited to his account. In fact, the balance amount shown in the pass book and in the account statement as on 19.9.2015 are same, i.e. Rs. 1,81,312/- excluding the dividend of Rs. 68,688/-. We therefore consider the balance amount of the complainant as on 19.9.2015 as Rs. 1,81,312/- and not Rs. 1,72,052/- as contested by the opponent. It is true that, as per the clause No.11 (b) of the agreement the complainant whose membership was already cancelled was entitled to receive the amount exclusive of dividend and deducting the amount at 5% of the chit value towards damages. Therefore after deducting the amount of dividend i.e. Rs.68,688/- and Rs.25,000/- i.e. total Rs.93,688/- from the amount which is in balance to the account of complainant i.e. Rs.2,50,000/-, the amount which requires to be refunded to the complainant comes to Rs. 1,56,312/-

However, the opponent has considered the balance amount only Rs. 1,72,052/- instead of Rs. 1,81,312/- and from that amount it had deducted Rs.25,000/- as per clause No. 11 (b) of the agreement which comes to Rs. 1,47,052/-. That, it had further deducted Rs. 1,03, 120/- from the amount of Rs. 1,47,052/- on the ground that the same amount is outstanding against the chit member namely Shri. Abdul Rehman Jamil Rumani to whom the complainant stood a guarantor and offered the balance of Rs.43,932/- (147052-103120). The opponent has supported his action of deducting the amount of Rs. 1,03,120/- giving reference of the condition No. 18 (b), although as per this condition the opponent is authorized to adjust the amount towards its liability without prior notice, we are of the opinion that, it was necessary for the opponent at least to inform in writing to the complainant about the outstanding amount against one Shri. Abdul Rahman and about the balance amount etc. However there is no such communication of record. The contention of the opponent that, it had offered the cheque of the balance amount of Rs.43,932/-, there is no any evidence on record to show that it had sent the said cheque to the complainant and the later rejected to issue. It is also to be noted that, from the account statement of one Shri. Abdul Rahman which is placed on record by the opponent itself, the balance amount as cumulative share to his account is shown as 4,17,652/-. There is no any mention of any outstanding amount of Rs. 1,03,120/- against this member. There is also no other record to show that, this member had outstanding amount of Rs. 1,03,120/-. As observed by Ld. District Forum there is no evidence on record to show that, the opponent had made attempt to recover the outstanding amount from the said member i.e. Abdul Rahman and directly deducted the amount of Rs. 1,03, 120/- from the balance amount of the complainant on the ground that, he was a surety holder. We therefore hold that, the action taken by the opponent of deducting the said amount of Rs. 1,03,120/- from the balance amount of the complainant is not at all justified.  We therefore conclude that the opponent is guilty of deficiency in service.

Point No.3:-

The Ld. District forum has rightly considered the balance amount of the complainant as Rs.2,50,000/- and considering the clause No. 11-b and 18 of conditions of the agreement has deducted Rs.25,000/- (5% of the chit value) and the amount of dividend i.e. Rs.68.688/-, the total of which come to Rs.93,688/- and worked out the amount of Rs.1,56,312/-, to be refunded to the complainant. We therefore find no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the District Forum whereby the Forum has directed the refund of Rs. 1,56,312/- along with relief towards mental harassment and cost of the complaint. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.”

8.       State Commission has given a well reasoned order and we are in agreement with its findings.  It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments[1] that revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited, it should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the provision i.e. when State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.  It is only when such findings are found to be against any provisions of law or against the pleadings or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, a case for interference may call for at the second appellate (revisional) jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction, the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission, which are on appreciation of evidence on record.   In view of the foregoing, we find no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld.  Accordingly, RP is dismissed.

9.       The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.