Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
J. NISHA BANU, J.
V. Subramanian & Another - Petitioners
Versus
D. Devi & Others - Respondents
CRP(NPD)(MD)Nos. 2206, 2208 & 2210 of 2018 & CMP(MD)Nos. 9838, 9844 & 9846 of 2018
Decided On : 13-02-2019
Consumer Protection Act - Consumer Disputes - Section 2(1)(d)(ii), Section 17(1)(b) - The court discussed the definition of consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. It highlighted the amendment excluding goods and services received for commercial purposes from the definition of consumers and emphasized that the intention of the amendment was to provide enhanced protection to vulnerable consumers. The court concluded that the first respondents were consumers within the meaning of the Act and upheld the impugned orders of the Circuit Bench of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, partners of a firm, failed to repay the amount promised in cash certificates issued against investments made by the first respondents. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum passed a final award in favor of the first respondents, leading to the filing of Civil Revision Petitions (CRPs) by the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first respondents were consumers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and upheld the impugned orders of the Circuit Bench of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. It directed the petitioners to file an appeal before the said forum if they chose to do so.
Issues: The key issues included whether the first respondents were consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, and the legality of the impugned orders of the Circuit Bench of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the definition of consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, emphasizing the exclusion of goods and services received for commercial purposes. It also considered the intention behind the amendment and the nature of the investment scheme offered by the petitioners' firm.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petitions were disposed of, and the petitioners were allowed one week to file an appeal before the Circuit Bench of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
1. These revision petitions have been filed to set aside the order dated 31.08.2018 made in RPSR.No.343, 344 & 345 of 2017 on the file of the Circuit Bench of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and consequently direct the Circuit Bench of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai to number the same and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
2. The petitioners in the CRPs are the respondents in CC. Nos. 1 to 3 of 2008 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as ''DCDRF'') and revision petitioners in RSPR Nos 343 to 345 of 2017 before the Circuit Bench of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as ''SCDRF''). The first respondents in the three CRPs are complainants in CC Nos 1 to 3 of 2008 and carry the order of final award. Perused the records and heard the counsels.
3. The impugned order dated 31.08.2018 made in RPSR Nos 343, 344 & 345 of 2017 had returned the revision petitions filed by the petitioners against the DCDRF Order CC Nos 1, 2 & 3/2008 dated 17.08.2017 that had directed the second respondent firm and the partners including the petitioners to repay the amount promised in the cash certificates issued against the investments of the first respondents along with compensation and costs and an interest amount of 9% per annum calculated from the date of maturity. The petitions were returned with a direction to file appeal within a week after observing that the revision petitions can not be entertained against a final award and that the petitioners had the opportunity to raise all the questions by filing regular appeal.
4. The petitioners along with the respondents 2 to 4 are partners of the second respondent firm. Petitioner No.1 is an advocate by profession practicing since 1987 and Petitioner No.2 is a woman married in the year 1980 and live away from Karur and they are not involved in the day to day activities of the second respondent firm functioning at Karur. The firm had offered investment scheme assuring the doubling of deposit investments in 60 months and issued cash certificates. The first respondents in each of the CRPs had invested an amount of Rs.30,000/- each during 2002 and the amount, as per the scheme, matured in 2007 to Rs.60,000/-. The petitioners firm had failed to repay the amount on maturity as promised in the cash certificates. As repeated requests to pay the matured amount failed, the first respondents in each of the petitions had approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum that eventually passed the final award in CC.Nos.1 to 3/2008 dated 17.08.2017.
5. The petitioners, aggrieved by the impugned orders, had filed these CRPs to restore the revision petitions on the file of the Circuit Bench of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and dispose of them in what they think as in accordance with law. The petitioners allege that the order of the DCDRF was passed ex-parte without issuing any notice to the petitioners. The petitioners contend that the respondents no 1 in each of the petitions are not consumers within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in view of the amendment dated 15.03.2013 that excluded transactions intended for commercial purposes. They also relied on the judgment reported in 1994 (4) SCC 225 and contended that prospective investors for future goods are not consumers as held in the said decision. Therefore, they contend that the Circuit Bench of the SCDRF had erred in passing the impugned orders by not exercising the authority conferred on them under Section 17 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They also allege that the order is not speaking. They argue that since the first respondents are not consumers within the meaning of the Act, the DCDRF had no authority and therefore had acted illegally and with material irregularity which is a subject of review by the SCDRF under Section 17 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protectio
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
