J.F. PORATHUR vs PUSHPAM JOY

THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Thrissur in O.P. No. 46/ 91. The opposite party is the appellant.

THE respondent herein who is the complainant was a subscriber to one ticket in 5th day pooval kuri conducted by the Catholic Financial Corporation and she paid about Rs. 13,000/- towards subscription. On 9.5.90 she prized the ticket at the 24th instalment. She was entitled to get the prize amount by the end of September, 1990. She applied for the prize amount in the proper form and the grievance of the complainant is that the prize amount was not given to her. In the circumstances she filed the above complaint. Respondents are the partners of the Catholic Financial Corporation. They filed a written objection admitting that the complainant was a subscriber and that she prized the ticket. However it was contended that sufficient security was not furnished in respect of future instalments and that was the reason for not making the payment of the prize amount. Some of the respondents also filed the objection stating that the District Forum has no jurisdiction and the complainant is not a consumer.

The District Forum rejected the contention that the complainant is not a consumer. Another contention raised was that only a Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. That was also rejected by the District Forum. The District Forum further found that the complainant is entitled to get the prize amount on furnishing security by way of Bank Deposit towards future instalments. It observed that the deposit of part of the prize amount with the foreman as security was not contemplated and therefore such demand made by the opposite parties is unreasonable. It is further found that in Exbt. A3 letter the complainant offered the filed deposit in the Cooperative Bank Kuriachira for 2 years and renewal thereafter as required. She requested the first respondent to calculate the minimum amount required considering discount and to intimate her and she further stated that lien may be noted on the fixed deposit receipt. But the opposite party did not accept that offer. The District Forum found that the rejection of the offer is not justified. To the circumstances, the District Forum passed an above order directing the opposite party to give the prize amount on furnishing security of bank deposit towards the future instalments in a scheduled Bank after notice to the 1st respondent. There was also direction to calculate the amount of security required for releasing the prize amount and intimate the complainant within 15 days and it was also ordered that on receipt of the said information the complainant will deposit the said amount as fixed deposit in a scheduled Bank and furnish the deposit receipt after noting the 1st respondent''s lien. It was also ordered that the complainant is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% on the prize amount from 20.9.90 till the date of payment.

IN this appeal the above directions made by the District Forum have been challenged. It is contended that under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act the District Forum has no jurisdiction to make direction. However under Section 14 as amended by a Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 1993, the District Forum has been empowered to make similar directions. The amendment inserted being a Social Welfare legislation, it has to be applied to the pending case also. IN the circumstances we do pot think that it is necessary to remand the matter as the power of the District Forum can be exercised by the Commission in appeal in view of the present amendment. We do not find any error in the order passed by the District Forum in other respects. The offer made by the complainant to deposit amount in the Co-operative Bank and furnish the deposit receipt as security by creating a lien was not accepted by the opposite parties and the opposite parties directed the complainant to deposit Rs. 20,000/- with the foremen which is not warranted under terms of Exbt. A1. There is an obligation on the part of foremen under the Chitty Act to deposit the prize amount in a bank if the subscriber is not in a position to furnish sufficient security. In the circumstances, there is no error in the direction made by the District Forum to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 20.9.90 the date on which the amount was due to be paid to the complainant.

THE foregoing discussion would show that there is no error in the order passed by the District Forum. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. However, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case- Appeal dismissed.