SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1986

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, JJ.
M/s. Sreenilaya Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 32975 of 2025
Decided On : 17-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : B. Mayur Reddy, Narsi Reddy Pesara
For the Respondent: N.S. Arjun

Consumer forums have jurisdiction in disputes involving chit fund operators, and failure to fulfill obligations pertains to deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Headnote:(A) Chit Funds Act, 1982 - Section 64 - Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Jurisdiction and Deficiency of Service - The appellant's failure to appear and its default in payment following the respondent's achievements under the chit fund scheme constituted deficiency of service, securing a payment order of Rs.8,90,000/- with interest and compensation to the respondent. (Paras 2, 11, 30)

(B) Jurisdiction of Consumer Forums - The court clarified that Consumer Forums have jurisdiction over chit fund disputes based on the precedence of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 over the Chit Funds Act, 1982, reinforcing consumer rights. (Paras 25, 30)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a chit fund company, was found liable for failing to pay the bid amount to a subscriber after she completed her obligations, resulting in a complaint filed with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Findings of Court:
The order requiring the payment of Rs.8,90,000/- plus interest and compensation was upheld, emphasizing the appellant's negligence and unfair trade practices.

Issues: The court addressed whether jurisdiction lay with the consumer forum and whether there was a deficiency in service by the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Consumer Protection Act allows for claims against chit fund operators, overriding previous statutes, and determined that the failure to fulfill obligations constituted a deficiency of service.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. preliminary factual background of the case (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. proceedings before the lower commission and findings (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
3. arguments presented by both parties (Para 13 , 14 , 21 , 22 , 28)
4. interpretation of consumer law applicable (Para 15 , 16 , 25 , 29)
5. jurisdictional issues related to the case (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 30)
6. final decision and dismissal of the writ petition (Para 31 , 32)

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Narsi Reddy Pesara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri N.S.Arjun Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed assailing the order dated 17.12.2024 in C.C.No.150 of 2024 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Hyderabad (respondent No.2 herein) in allowing the complaint filed by respondent No.4 (subscriber of chit) herein in part directing the Opposite Party No.2 therein i.e. The Deputy Registrar of Chits to take necessary action against the Opposite Party No.1 therein i.e. petitioner herein and directing the petitioner herein to pay the bid amount of Rs.8,90,000/- to respondent No.4 with interest @ 12% p.a. from August, 2023 till the date of realization along with a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the financial loss and mental agony caused besides Rs.5,000/- towards costs, within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.

3. The facts leading to filing of C.C.No.150 of 2024 are that the petitioner herein, a Private Limited Company incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956, has been doing chit fund business. Respondent No.4 herein, in order to meet her commercial requirements and needs, joined as a member of the Chit Fund Scheme of the petitioner, signed the Chit Agreement on 21.03.2020 and thereafter was allotted Ticket No.46 in the Chit Series of LT5N for a total chit value of Rs.10,00,000/- payable in 50 equal monthly installments @ Rs.20,000/- by 10th of every month

4. It is the case of the respondent No.4 that she paid 13 installments for the period upto March, 2020 and participated in the auction conducted on 31.05.2020 and became successful bidder having agreed to forego a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- out of the total chit value of Rs.10,00,000/-. Thus, the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to respondent No.4 on furnishing sureties as per the terms and conditions of the Chit Agreement. Due to Covid Pandemic, respondent No.4 could not furnish sureties, and later in the month of July, 2020 she furnished required sureties to the satisfaction of the petitioner. But the petitioner postponed payment of the bid amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to respondent No.4 on one pretext or the other.

5. It is the further case of the respondent No.4 that in the month of March, 2021 the petitioner came forward to pay the bid amount of Rs.4,49,362/- after deducting the total subscription amount of Rs.1,50,638/- due from the 14th to 23rd installments i.e. from June, 2020 to March, 2021. Respondent No.4 claimed interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on the bid amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the month of August, 2020 to March, 2021, for which, the petitioner refused to pay the same.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 committed default in payment of amount towards installment Nos.48 to 50. Thereby the petitioner issued legal notice dated 03.03.2025 to respondent No.4 demanding for payment of defaulted amount together with interest @ 18% p.a.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 filed complaint before respondent No.2 vide C.C.No.150 of 2024 against the petitioner claiming to pay the bid amount of Rs.8,90,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from August, 2023 till the date of payment.

8. Despite granting stipulated time by learned respondent No.2 to the petitioner for filing written version, as the petitioner failed to file the written arguments, respondent No.2 forfeite

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top