E.J. Bellie, President

1. The opposite party against whom a decree has been passed by the District Forum, is the Appellant. The transaction alleged by the complainant in respect of which according to him the opposite party has committed deficiency in service is a chit transaction. The complainant was a subscriber to a chit conducted by the opposite party. According to him, he had paid the entire subscription and at the end of the chit he was entitled to Rs. 40,000/- and when he demanded payment of this amount the opposite party evaded. On these grounds the complaint has been filed for payment of Rs. 40,000/- and compensation.

2. The opposite party contended that the complainant had obtained a loan of Rs. 80,000/- from him, and the chit amount of Rs. 40,000/- has been adjusted towards this loan amount as per the letter written by the complainant, and there is still a balance of Rs. 10,000/- due from the complainant to the opposite party, and therefore there is no deficiency in service on its part as alleged by the complainant.

3. The District Forum rejected the case of the opposite party and, holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, gave an award.

4. Now in the appeal, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/opposite party raises a legal plea viz.in view of Section 64 of the Chit Funds Act, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to try the complaint and, therefore, the order passed by it is unsustainable. After hearing both sides, we find there is much force in this contention of the learned Counsel. Section 64 of the Chit Funds Act 1982 (Act 40 of 1982) is in the following terms :-

'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 of 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 purpose of this subsection, 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 long 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 purpose 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 suit or other proceedings in respect of any dispute referred to in Subsection (1).'

It is clear from Clause (i) under the explanation given in the section that a dispute regarding a claim by a subscriber against the foreman is a matter which shall be referred to the Registrar for an arbitration as required under Sub-section (1). As per Sub-section (3) Section 64, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain suit or other proceedings referred to in Sub-section (1). From this it is plain that a dispute, as the one in the present case, has to be referred to the Registrar for arbitration as per Section 64 and no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to resolve the dispute. This being the case, the question is whether the Consumer Forum will have jurisdiction to decide the dispute in a complaint filed before it when the dispute falls within the ambit of Section 64 of the Chit Funds Act.

5. It may be noted that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act reads thus :

'3. 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.'

Apparently, in view of this section, any of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act shall not be in derogation of the provisions of Section 64 of the Chit Funds Act. It, therefore, follows that a dispute in respect of a chit transaction which comes under Section 64 has to be referred to the Registrar only for an arbitration and no complaint can be filed before the a Consumer Forum. Of course, the Consumer Protection Act is a later enactment compared to the Chit Funds Act. But that is not material when the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act shall not be in derogation to Section 64 of the Chit Funds Act.

6. There is another reason also because of which the Consumer Forum cannot have jurisdiction. That is, when there are two Acts, one being a special Act and the other general, the provisions of the special Act will prevail over the provisions of the general Act. There is no doubt that the Chit Funds Act is a special Act and the Consumer Protection Act is comparatively a general Act. The Supreme Court in its recent judgment in Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporations. v.Consumer Protection Council I (1995) CPJ 3 (SC) (1995) CPJ 3 (SC)= (1995) 2 SCC 479 I has held that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a special Act in relation to claims of compensation arising out of the use of motor vehicles and the Consumer Protection Act 1986, being a law dealing with the question of protection of consumers in general, could be said to be a general law in relation to the specific provisions concerning accidents arising out of the use of motor vehicles found under Chapter XII of the 1988 Act. Similarly the Chit Funds Act, 1982, dealing with disputes arising out of chit transa

ctions, is a special law and the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is a general law. Therefore, applying the principle that ordinarily the general law must yield to the special law, matters which will come within the purview of Section 64 of the Chit Funds Act must be referred to the Registrar as stated therein, and they cannot be decided by the Consumer Forum/Commission constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. For these reasons, the award passed by the District Forum cannot be sustained. 7. In this view of the matter the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside, and the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.