Gadi Praveen Kumar, J.

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 forfeited the right of petitioner to file its written version.

9. Learned respondent No.2 framed the following points for consideration:

               “1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties as claimed under the complaint?

               2. Whether the Complaint is entitled for the relief sought? If so, to what extent?”

10. During enquiry before the learned respondent No.2, on behalf of respondent No.4, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner, no witnesses were examined nor were any documents marked.

11. Learned respondent No.2, based on the material available on record, vide its order dated 17.12.2024 held and reiterated that in spite of giving ample opportunity for the proper adjudication of the matter, the petitioner failed to appear before it, thereby petitioner’s right to file written version and subsequent evidence affidavit and written arguments got forfeited. It was further held that the negligent attitude of the petitioner clearly proves unfair trade practice, techniques which resulted in financial loss to respondent No.4, thereby the petitioner has failed in fulfilling its obligations of paying the chit amount to respondent No.4 within the specified time and it amounts to deficiency in service. Learned respondent No.2 thereby allowed the complaint filed by respondent No.4 in part directing the petitioner to pay the bid amount of Rs.8,90,000/- to respondent No.4 with interest @ 12% p.a. from August, 2023 till date of realization besides a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the financial loss and mental agony caused and Rs.5000/- towards costs.

12. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

13. Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner primarily contended that the order dated 17.12.2024 is obtained by playing fraud on learned respondent No.2 and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, and therefore contended that the order passed by the learned respondent No.2 is liable to be set aside. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the learned Respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.

14. On the other hand, Sri N.S. Arjun Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing on behalf respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that learned respondent No.2 has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint lodged by respondent No.4 and as such, the order passed by the learned respondent No.2 is legal, valid and does not call for any interference by this Court.

15. In support of his contentions, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed reliance on the order passed by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Kovilakam Chits and Financial Services Ltd. Vs. K.L. Benny (2003 (2) CPC (NC) 590) wherein it was held that the intent of the legislation is clear that remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short ‘the 2019 Act’) was in addition to any other law in force and that the said Act was enacted in the year 1986 whereas the Chit Fund Act is the statute of 1982. It was further held that under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Act is not in derogation of any other law. The provisions of the said Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.

16. In support of his contentions, learned Government Pleader further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Imperia Structures Limited Vs. Anil Patni and another ((2020) 10 SCC 783) and Shriram Chits (K) Ltd. rep. by its Manager Vs. Raghachand Associates (2021 SCC Online NCDRC 541).

17. We have given our earnest contentions to the contentions raised on either side, and perused the record.

18. For better adjudication of the matter, it is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 64 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’), which states as under:

               “64. Disputes relating to chit business.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the management of a chit business shall be referred by any of the parties to the dispute, to the Registrar for arbitration if each party thereto is one or the other of the following, namely:—

               (a) a foreman, a prized subscriber or a non-prized subscriber, including a defaulting subscriber, past subscriber or a person claiming through a subscriber, or a deceased subscriber to a chit;

               (b) a surety of a subscriber, past subscriber, or a deceased subscriber.

               Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, a dispute touching the management of a chit business shall include—

               (i) a claim by or against a foreman for any debt or demand due to him from a subscriber, or due from him to a subscriber, past subscriber or the nominee, heir or legal representative of a deceased subscriber whether such debt or demand is admitted or not;

               (ii) a claim by a surety for any sum or demand due to him from the principal borrower in respect of a loan by a foreman and recovered from the surety owing to the default of the principal borrower, whether such sum or demand is admitted or not; and

               (iii) a refusal or failure by a subscriber, past subscriber or the nominee, heir or legal representative of a deceased subscriber to deliver possession to a foreman of land or any other asset resumed by him for breach of conditions of the assignment.

               (2) Where any question arises as to whether any matter referred to for the award of the Registrar is a dispute or not for the purposes of sub-section (1), the same shall be decided by the Registrar whose decision thereon shall be final.

               (3) No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any dispute referred to in sub-section (1)”

19. Section 100 of the 2019 Act states:

               “100. The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

20. The primary contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that learned respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to entertain the case since, in terms of Section 64 of the Act, the disputes relating to chit business, shall be referred to, by any of the parties to the dispute, to Registrar of Chits for arbitration.

21. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that that respondent No.4 obtained the order dated 17.12.2024 by playing fraud, and that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner attracting the jurisdiction of learned respondent No.2.

22. Admittedly, the order passed by the learned respondent No.2 dated 17.12.2024 is assailed before this Court in the month of October, 2025 without even filing any application for condonation of delay nor do we find any single averment explaining the reasons for approaching this Court with abnormal delay.

23. The petitioner, without availing the alternative remedy of approaching the State or National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has straight away knocked the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even in this regard, there is no averment in the affidavit filed along with the Writ Petition as to why petitioner has by-passed the said alternative remedy.

24. Further, on perusal of the impugned order, it reflects that despite granting several adjournments, the petitioner failed to file its written version/written arguments or appear before the learned respondent No.2. Para-6 of the impugned order specifically states that respondent No.4 approached the petitioner for payment of the chit amount, but petitioner postponed the payment by saying one reason or other, that respondent No.4 having understood the difficulties of the petitioner, waited till March, 2024, and thereafter petitioner came with a proposal of making 50% of the bid amount in the month of April, 2024 and to pay the balance by October, 2024. It is further recorded in the impugned that when respondent No.4 did not accept the said proposal of the petitioner and demanded the whole amount with interest @ 24% p.a. for the delayed period from August, 2023 till date of payment, the petitioner and its staff threatened respondent No.4 with dire consequences and later the petitioner neither paid the amount nor responded to the phone calls, thereby causing deficiency in rendering service to respondent No.4 as per law. The said findings recorded by the learned respondent No.2 reflect the attitude of the petitioner in trying to delay the payment in favour of respondent No.4.

25. The learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Kovilakam Chits and Financial Services Ltd (supra) held as under:

               “6. Section 64(1) reads ‘Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force…’. There is no dispute that Chit Fund Act is a statute of 1982 whereas Consumer Protection is a statute of 1986, whose Section 3 read as follows: ‘Act not in derogation of any other law. The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force’.

               7. C.P.A., 1986 was not in force in 1982, whereas opposite is true. The intent of the legislation is clear that remedy under C.P.A. was in addition to any law in force at that time. The provision of subsequent legislation i.e. CPA in such a situation shall override the provision of older Statute i.e. Chief Fund Act, 1982”.

               It was further held that Section 64(3) of the Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court whereas the Consumer Forums have been held to be not a Civil Court, and that the Chit Fund cases fall very much within the ambit of Consumer Forums and Chit Fund falls within the definition service as defined in section 2(1)(o) of the Act.

26. In Imperia Structures Limited (supra), the Apex Court held that the question as to whether the remedies available to the consumers under the provisions of the Act would be additional remedies, was considered in Thirumugugan Coop. Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M.Lalitha ((2004) 1 SCC 305), National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy ((2012) 2 SCC 506) and Virender Jain Vs. Alakananda Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. ((2013) 9 SCC 383). It was consistently held that the remedies available under the provisions of the 2019 Act are additional remedies over and above those under any special enactment and entertained the application under the 2019 Act. It was also held that Section 100 of the 2019 Act is akin to Section 3 of the Act and Section 107 the 2019 Act saves all actions taken or purported to have been taken under the previous Act of 1986.

27. Generally, the subscribers of the Chit mostly belong to Middle Income Groups, who invest their hard earned money in Chits for the purpose of future needs like education of their children, marriage, health or house construction etc.

28. In the present case on hand, admittedly the petitioner has failed to appear before the learned respondent No.2 in order to raise any issue with regard to maintainability and after abnormal delay, has approached this Court without availing the alternative remedy, and the said course of action adopted by the petitioner shows that it is deliberately trying to delay the payment to respondent No.4.

29. On the other hand, the 2019 Act is a consumer friendly and beneficial legislation intended to address the grievances of the consumers. Moreover, the action of the petitioner having received the subscription amount, failed to pay the legitimate chit amount in favour of respondent No.4, cannot be sustained.

30. Therefore, we hold that the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad-III bars jurisdiction to entertain any dispute touching the Management of the Chit Fund business, cannot be accepted. On the other hand, any deficiency of service arose even under the Act is also maintainable before the learned respondent No.2 in view of the settled legal position of law.

31. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned respondent No.2.

32. Accordingly, W.P.No.32975 of 2025, with all connected applications, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.