IMPORTANT POINT
Chit Fund Schemes in Delhi are governed by Madras Chit Fund Act and Consumer Complaint by subscriber of chit will be maintainable.

Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member— This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.1.2000 passed by the District Forum-I, Tis Hazari, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 82/98 entitled Shri Yudishter Kumar Malhotra v. M/s. Arjit Chits Pvt. Ltd. and Others.

2. The brief facts are, that the petitioner was the subscriber of two chits managed and run by the respondent No. 1 which is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is also registered with the Registrar of Chit Fund, Delhi under the Madras Chit Fund Act, 1961. The petitioner being the holder of Ticket No. 14 of the Chit Scheme ACB-6 and Ticket No. 16 of the Chit Scheme ACB-7 was not paid the amount due in respect of both chits totalling a sum of Rs. 2,85,000/- by the respondent No. 1. As such the petitioner approached the District Forum for redressal of his grievances.

3. The respondent No. 1 filed its reply/written version before the District Forum taking the preliminary objection that the District Forum had no juris-diction to entertain the complaint

under Section 64(3) of the Chit Fund Act, 1982. On merits, it was stated that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from respondent No. 1 in March, 1997 and since the same had not been repaid, the amount payable in res-pect of the chits was not refunded to the petitioner.

4. The defence of respondent No. 3, the Manager of Allahabad Bank before the District Forum was that the amount in question, in Fixed Deposit was not payable directly to the petitioner without the endorsement of the Registrar of Chit Fund and respondent No. 1.

5. The learned District Forum on the basis of material on record dismissed the complaint, filed by the petitioner on the preliminary ground that the same was not maintainable in view of the provisions under Section 64(3) of the Chit Fund Act, 1982.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the impugned order.

7. We have carefully perused the documents/material placed on record, as well as, have heard the arguments advan-ced on behalf of the parties. The sole question for decision before this Commi-ssion is as to whether the District Forum had erred in holding that the complaint was not maintainable before it in view of the provisions of Section 64(3) of the Chit Fund Act, 1982. In this regard the conten-tion of the petitioner is that the Chit Fund business in Delhi is governed by the Madras Chit Fund Act, 1961 and not by the Chit Fund Act, 1982. The Chit Fund Act of 1982 has not been made applicable to the State of Delhi till date. On the other hand, the thrust of argu-ment on the part of the respondent is that the Madras Chit Fund Act, 1961 has been repealed by the Chit Fund Act, 1982 and as such the Madras Chit Fund Act, 1961 as extended to the UT of Delhi is not applicable to the facts of the case. We are however, unable to subscribe to the view held by the respondents. As is apparent from Section 1 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982, the said Act was to come into force in the various States of India on different dates to be notified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette. However, the Chit Fund Act, 1982 has not been made applicable to the State of Delhi by any notification till date, and the said fact is not denied by the respondent. Furthermore, the Annexure 1 of the revision petition is the certificate dated 15.2.2000 issued by the office of the Registrar of Chit Fund, Delhi whereby it is categorically stated that the Chit Fund business in Delhi is being governed by the Madras Chit Fund Act, 1961. Clause 13 of the chit agreement placed on record as Annexure P4 also specifically provides that the relevant Chit Fund Scheme is governed by the provisions of the Madras Chit Fund Act, 1961. Therefore, in our opinion the Chit Fund Act, 1982 having not come into force in Delhi was not applicable and, therefore, the learned District Forum has erroneously held that it had no jurisdiction