THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NOs.4997, 5024, 5040, 5052, 5053, 5201 and 5822 of 2010 07-06-2010 BETWEEN; (W.P.No.4997 of 2010) Nalla Mallesham and others ...Petitioners vs. Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Khairatabad, Hyderabad and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NOs.4997, 5024, 5040, 5052, 5053, 5201 and 5822 of 2010 ORAL COMMON ORDER: (Per GR,J) Several orders passed by the District Forum, Karimnagar, all dated 07 02-2005 directing the petitioners (opposite parties before the Forum) to pa maturity amounts of different values in each of the consumer dispute case with interest as specified in the orders and costs as specified, ar challenged in these batch of writ petitions on the sole and singular groun that the Consumer Disputes Forum has no jurisdiction and the complaint before the Forum are not maintainable in view of the provisions of the A. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act,1999 (A.P. Act No.17 of 1999) ( for short “ the 1999 Act”). The facts insofar as they pertain to the singular jurisdictional issu raised in these batch of writ petitions are identical and the facts i W.P.No.4997 of 2010 are illustrative of the relevant facts falling fo consideration in these batch of writ petitions. The relevant facts i W.P.No.4997 of 2010 are therefore considered. Relevant facts in W.P.No.4997 of 2010:- The respondent preferred a complaint under Section 12 of th Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Central Act No.68 of 1986) (for short “th 1986 Act”) alleging that opposite parties i.e., the petitioners and the 4t respondent herein had established a partnership firm for running financia business under the name and style of M/s.Navodaya Hire Purchase an Finance, Jagtial in 1996 and introduced fixed deposit scheme undertakin to refund double the amount invested. Induced thereby, the complainan deposited Rs.5000/- with a maturity period of 24.01.2002, on which dat an amount of Rs.10,000/- would become repayable. After the maturity dat and despite demand by the complainant, the maturity amount was no refunded and hence the complainant claimed refund of Rs.10,000/- wit interest from the date of maturity i.e., 24-01-2002 till the realisation @ 18% per annum. In the counter filed in the Consumer Dispute (CD No. 236 of 2002) th petitioners contested the claims in the complaint on merits and did no raise any issue either with regard to jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum nor with regard to any defect in the impleading of necessary and prope parties. By the order dated 07-02-2005 the District Forum allowe Consumer Dispute No.236 of 2002 and directed the petitioners and the 3r respondent, as the opposite parties to pay the maturity amount o Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturit i.e., 24-01-2002 till the date of realisation and also to pa Rs.1000/- towards costs to the complainant. Sri Donthi Reddy Venkat Reddy, the learned counsel for the severa petitioners herein contends that the 1999 Act is a special enactment fo protecting the interest of depositors of financial establishments in the Stat and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The petitioner contend by implication that the partnership firm-M/s Navodaya Hir Purchase and Finance is a partnership firm falling within the expressio “financial Establishment”, defined in Sec.2(c) of the 1999 Act and that an complaint by a depositor or depositors that such financial establishmen has defaulted or is likely to default in the return of deposits in cash or kin after maturity, or in any manner agreed upon, is liable to be proceeded wit exclusively under the provisions of the State Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners specifically relies on th provisions of the Section 6 of this Act to contend that the adjudicatory for established under the provisions of the 1986 Act ceased to hav jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any matter falling within the jurisdiction o the provisions of the 1999 Act. Sub-section(1) of Section 6 enjoins th Government { meaning the State Government of A.P – vide Section 2(d) with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification to constitute a District and Sessions Court as a special court. Sub-sectio (2) of this section enacts that no court including a court constituted unde the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act,1909 and the Provincial Insolvenc Act,1920, other than the Special Court shall have jurisdiction in respect o any matter to which the provisions of this Act apply and sub-section (3 enacts that any pending case in any other court to which the provisions o this Act apply shall stand transferred to the Special Court. On the basis of the above provisions and the raft of the othe provisions of the 1999 Act, the learned counsel would contend that it is th special court established under the provisions of the 1999 Act which ha exclusive jurisdiction and such legislatively conferred exclusiv jurisdiction eclipses any jurisdiction conferred on a court or a Tribuna established under the provisions of the 1986 Act. The statement of objects and reasons accompanying 1986 Act state that the Bill is introduced to provide for better protection of the interest o consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment o Consumer Councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers disputes and for matters connected therewith. The legislative purpose underlying the enactment of 1986 Act are inter alia to provide a right to th consumer to seek redressal against unfair trade practice or unscrupulou exploitation of consumers. To achieve such objects, the 1986 Act wa enacted with the several provisions set out in its several Chapters. Sectio 2 (g) defines “deficiency” to mean any fault, imperfection or short-coming i the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to b maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has bee undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract o otherwise, in relation to any service. Section 2(o) defines “service” to mea any service of any description which is made available to potential (user and includes but not limited to, the provision of) facilities in connection wit banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical o other energy, board or lodging or both entertainment, amusement or th purveying of news or other information, but does not include the renderin of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service Section 3 of the 1986 Act enjoins the provisions of this Act to be in respec of and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force Chapter-III enumerates the consumer disputes redressal agencies to b established under the provisions of this Act and Section 12 enacts that complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold o delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided may be file with a District Forum by the consumer to whom inter alia such service i provided or agreed to be provided. Sections 13 to 27-A set out house keeping and other provisions relating to the composition and jurisdiction o the State Commission; provision for Appeal; for transfer of cases composition of the National Commission and its jurisdiction and other suc necessary and incidental provisions for effectuation of the purposes of th Act including provisions relating to limitation and enforcement of the order of the District Forum, State Commission or National Commission. Sectio 27 in this Chapter provides for penalties where a trader or a person agains whom a complaint is made fails or omits to comply with any order made b the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission. Sri Venkat Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners does no contend nor do these writ petitions plead or is any effort made to establis that the complaint by the appropriate respondent (3rd respondent i W.P.No.4997 of 2010) is not a complaint which would otherwise fall withi the jurisdiction of the fora established under the provisions of the 1986 Ac nor is it contended that the Parliament lacks legislative competence t enact a law for dealing with the adjudication of disputes between person and financial establishments which fall within the rubric of consume disputes. It is not also the contention of the petitioners that consume disputes and adjudication thereof is a matter falling within the exclusiv legislative field of the State under any of the entries in List-II of the 7t Schedule to the Constitution. It is fairly conceded that the consume dispute presented before the District Forum, Karimnagar falls within th matrix of consumer disputes comprehended within by the provisions of th 1986 Act. It requires to be noticed that none of the provisions of the 198 Act is challenged in these batch of writ petitions on the ground that suc provision is beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament. Clearly the complaints presented by the appropriate respondents i this batch of writ petitions fall within the jurisdiction of the fora created fo the adjudication of the consumer disputes under the provisions of the 198 Act. As already noticed Section 3 of the 1986 Act clarifies that th provisions of the Act are in addition and not in derogation of the provision of any other law for the time being in force. A person aggrieved by defective service including by a financia establishment, as the dominus litus has thus a plurality of litigativ choices. He may move the fora created or established under th provisions of the 1986 Act or he may move for the relief under th provisions of the 1999 Act. In the absence of any legislative infirmity in th provisions of the 1986 Act, either on account of an inherent lack o legislative competence or eclipse of such competence of the Parliamen on the ground of any overarching State enactment in respect of a field o legislation enumerated in any of the Entries in List III, the petitioner cannot gainfully contend that in view of the provisions of the 199 enactment the provisions of the 1986 Act or the adjudicatory for established thereunder go into eclipse. On the aforesaid analyses, no case is made out by the petitioners fo interference in these writ petitions. Other grievances of the petitioners other than those touching upon the jurisdiction of the consumer disput forum, Karimnagar, presented in these batch of writ petitions are mor appropriately presented before the State Consumer Dispute Redressa Commission or any other remedy provided under the provisions of th 1986 Act. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed at the stage of admissio but in the circumstances without costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ NOUSHAD ALI,J 7th JUNE 2010 TSNR