Consumer forum jurisdiction survives chit fund arbitration remedy, and third-party debt cannot be set off against admitted entitlement.

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides an additional remedy, so an arbitration or statutory reference mechanism under the Chit Fund Act, 1982 does not by itself bar consumer fora from entertaining a chit fund complaint. The consumer forum was treated as a quasi-judicial body, not a civil court, and the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction under the Chit Fund Act did not displace consumer jurisdiction. The amount payable to a subscriber under the chit could not be adjusted against a loan allegedly due from his father, because the complainant's admitted entitlement could not be withheld on account of a third party's liability. The State Commission's order was affirmed and the revision was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the existence of an arbitration remedy under the Chit Fund Act, 1982 barred the jurisdiction of the consumer fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to entertain the complaint; (ii) whether the amount payable to the complainant under the chit fund could be adjusted against a loan allegedly due from his father.

Issue (i): Whether the existence of an arbitration remedy under the Chit Fund Act, 1982 barred the jurisdiction of the consumer fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to entertain the complaint.

Analysis: Section 64 of the Chit Fund Act provided for reference of specified chit disputes to the Registrar and excluded the jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of such disputes. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act made its remedies additional to, and not in derogation of, other laws. The consumer forum was treated as a quasi-judicial body and not a civil court. On that basis, the statutory bar under the Chit Fund Act was held not to prevent recourse to consumer fora.

Conclusion: The consumer fora had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount payable to the complainant under the chit fund could be adjusted against a loan allegedly due from his father.

Analysis: The amount under the chit fund was admitted to be due to the complainant. A liability of the complainant's father could not lawfully be set off against the complainant's own entitlement under the chit. The withholding of the maturity amount was therefore unjustified.

Conclusion: The adjustment was impermissible and the complainant was entitled to the maturity amount.

Final Conclusion: The order of the State Commission was affirmed, and the revision was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory reference to arbitration and exclusion of civil court jurisdiction does not, by itself, bar a consumer forum from entertaining a dispute where the Consumer Protection Act gives an additional remedy, and a third party's debt cannot be adjusted against the complainant's admitted entitlement absent legal authority.

---