THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.21272 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the orders, dated 18.11.2008 and 11.08.2005, passed in F.A.No.643 of 2006 and C.D.No.24 of 2005 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and the District Consumer Redressal Forum, West Godavari District, Eluru, respectively and for setting aside the same. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the first and second respondents being husband and wife respectively, had deposited certain amounts on different dates before the petitioner’s Constructions and Sri Ram Priya Chit Funds Private Limited, Bhimavaram, under fixed deposit receipts and the total matured amount is Rs.1,59,400/- with interest @ 25% per annum from the date of the maturity. Since they failed to pay the monthly interest accrued on those fixed deposits regularly, as offered by them, the first and second respondents have issued a legal notice, dated 13.09.2004, but no reply has been given by them. When the first and second respondents have surrendered the original fixed deposit receipts, the petitioner and Sri Ram Priya Chit Funds Private Limited paid only an amount of Rs.4,134/-towards interest, and the same was refused by them. Hence, the first and second respondents filed C.D.No.24 of 2005 before the District Forum, West Godavari District, Eluru, which in turn allowed the same directing the petitioner and another to pay a sum of Rs.1,59,400/- being fixed deposit receipt amount with interest at 24% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of filing the complaint and thereafter with interest at 9% per annum till the date of realization and also to pay costs of Rs.1000/-to the first and second respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner and another filed F.A.No.643 of 2006 before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, which in turn allowed in part stating that the first and second respondents are entitled to Rs.1,59,400/- with interest at 18% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till the date of filing of the complaint and thereafter, at 9% till the date of realization with costs of Rs.1000/- and dismissed it against Sri Ram Priya Chit Funds Private Limited, Bhimavaram. Time for compliance was also granted for a period of four weeks. Since the petitioner had failed to comply with the same, the first and second respondents filed P.P.No.93 of 2009 in C.D.No.24 of 2005 under Section 27 of the Andhra Pradesh Consumers Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’) for sending the petitioner to civil prison. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the complaint filed by the first and second respondents is not maintainable under law since the transaction is commercial in nature. He further contended that since there is no deficiency of service as required under Section 2(g) of the Act, the District Consumer Redressal Forum ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction. He further contended that under Section 3 of the Act, 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 and therefore, as the Managing Director of the petitioner is a woman, she cannot be arrested for realization of the debt due under the decree under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. 5. Section 2(g) of the Act reads as under: ‘deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service’. 6. The first and second respondents have invested their joint family funds with the petitioner and another on different dates by way of fixed deposits and obtained receipts under Exs.A1 to A7. When they surrendered on their maturity, the petitioner and another failed to pay the matured amount. This shows that they have committed default in payment of the matured amount as offered by them and are indulging unfair trade practice, which amounts to deficiency of service and as such, the District Forum allowed the complaint of the first and second respondents as specified supra. On appeal, the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, also confirmed the order of the District Forum reducing interest from 24% to 18% and dismissed the complaint against Sri Ram Priya Chit Funds Private Limited holding that it is not a party to the transaction and is a sister concern to the petitioner, and granted four weeks time for compliance of the said order. Since both the Forums below have concurrently held that there is deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner and the first and second respondents are entitled to Rs.1,59,400/- with interest at 18% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till the date of filing the complaint and thereafter, at 9% till the date of realization with costs of Rs.1,000/-, and the same has attained finality, we do no find any infirmity in it warranting interference by this Court. 7. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the Managing Director of the petitioner is a woman, she cannot be arrested and sent to civil prison as per the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, is merit less, as the amount payable by the petitioner is not a decretal amount, but it is a fixed deposit amount as offered by it. Section 27 of the Act provides ‘Penalties’, which reads as under: “Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made or the complainant fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person (or complainant) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousands rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both. As per the above said provision, since the petitioner failed to comply with the orders of both the Forums below, it cannot be absolved of its liability in payment of the matured amount due under those fixed deposits to the first and second respondents. 8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J Date:11.08.2010. sj