ORDER

Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member.—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