The Commissioner, Thiru. Vi. Ka. Nagar Benefit Fund Ltd. vs N.S. Rajammal, The Special Officer, Thiru. Vi. Ka. Nagar Benefit Fund Ltd. and Amo Gurunarayana Rao, Director, Thiru. Vi. Ka. Nagar Benefit Fund Ltd.

S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.—The Revision Petitioner herein is the Commissioner, Thiru.Vi.Ka. Nagar Benefit Fund Ltd. Chennai-600

This Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in O.P.No. 88/2000, dated 14.12.2001, on the file of the District Consumer

Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North).

The 1st respondent herein filed the above O.P.No. 88/2000 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, u/s 11 of the Consumer

Protection Act, 1986, claiming that she is one of the depositors in respondents 2 and 3 and seeking to direct respondents 2 and 3 herein to pay the

monthly interest of Rs. 1,333/- from December, 1999 onwards and also for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards the mental agony suffered by

the 1st respondent.

The said O.P. was opposed by respondents 2 and 3, stating that orders were passed by the High Court in W.P.Nos. 1560, 2074 and 2075 of

2000, as per the order dated 20.4.2000 in which this Court appointed Commissioner to look after the affairs of the said Benefit Fund Ltd., with

further direction to recover the dues to the said Benefit Fund Ltd., and to disburse the same to the creditors. The Commissioner took charge on

29.4.2000 and gradually recovering the dues payable to the said Benefit Fund Ltd., and the amounts are being disbursed to the creditors.

According to the said Benefit Fund Ltd., there is no deficiency of service on their part. Further, it is stated that as per the orders of this Court, a

sum of Rs. 6,000/- was paid to the 1st respondent herein, as per two cheques dated 17.10.2000 in two instalments, one at 5% and another at

7.5%.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, despite the orders of this Court in W.P.Nos. 1560, 2074 and 2075 of 2000, dated

20.4.2000, directing to disburse the amounts due to the 1st respondent herein, in two instalments, one at 5%, as per the copy of the High Court

order of Memo for disbursement, dated 28.4.2000, and another at 7.5%, as per the High Court order of Memo, dated 29.9.2000, which were

marked on the side of the said Benefit Fund Ltd., by stating that, as per Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the appointment of

Commissioner by this Court, will not apply to the case of the 1st respondent herein, and in that view, directed respondents 2 and 3 herein to pay

the 1st respondent herein, monthly interest of Rs. 1,333/- from December 1999, onwards, though negativing the claim for compensation. The said

order is challenged in this Revision Petition.

Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that despite the fact that Thiru S. Vijayarangam, retired District Judge, was appointed by

this Court as Commissioner as per the order dated 28.4.2000 in W.M.P.Nos. 2362 to 2364, 3207 and 3208 of 2000 in W.P.Nos. 1560, 2074

and 2075 of 2000, who received necessary application from the creditors, for disbursement of amounts at 5% and 7.5% as stated therein, and

accordingly moneys have also been disbursed to them, including the 1st respondent herein, as seen from Exs.B-2 and B-3 and when this Court has

seized of the matter, the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is erroneous.

On perusing the documents available on record and in appreciation of the arguments made by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, it

is seen that though the copy of order passed by the High Court in W.P.Nos. 1560, 2074 and 2075 of 2000, dated 20.4.2000, and the copy of

the High Court order of memo for disbursement of the amounts to the creditors have been marked as Exs.B-1 to B-3 and the District Consumer

Disputes Reddressal Forum itself, pointed out in paragraph 7 of its order and though refused to give compensation as claimed by the 1st

respondent herein, however, by virtue of Section 3 of the said Act, and irrespective of the appointment of Commissioner, as ordered by this Court,

gave a direction for payment of interest as claimed by the 1st respondent herein, which is incorrect and improper.

This Court can exercise judicial superintendence in respect of the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal forum, which is under

challenge in this revision, as held in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, , in which the Hon''ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 79

thus:-

We also hold that the power vested in the High Courts to exercise judicial superintendence over the decisions of all Courts and Tribunals

within their respective jurisdictions is also part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This is because a situation where the High Courts are

divested of all other judicial functions apart from that of constitutional interpretation, is equally to be avoided.

Therefore, following the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and inasmuch as the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has

committed an error in ordering payment of interest, despite the matter seized by this Court by appointing Commissioner with a direction to recover

the dues to the said Benefit Fund and to disburse the same to the creditors. Therefore, the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal

Forum is liable to be set aside.

In view of the discussions made above, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 14.12.2001 passed by the District Consumer

Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) in O.P.No. 88 of 2000 is set aside. The O.P.No. 88 of 2000, on the file the District Consumer

Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) is dismissed. No costs.