APHC010227372026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3579] WRIT PETITION NO: 12054 OF 2026 Between: 1. CHILAKALAPUDI RAM GOPAL, S/O BHASKAR RAO LATE, AGED 65 YEARS, OCC MANAGER / PROPRIETOR, SRI SIVA SAI VIJAYA CHITS PVT. LTD., R/O HNO 2/44, 2ND LANE, CHANAKYAPURI COLONY, RR PETA, ELURU-534002. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522238 2. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, 1ST FLOOR, BESIDES SIRIS COMPANY, ASHOK NAGAR, KANUR, VIJAYAWADA-520007. 3. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ELURU.534001 4. K V CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO, S/O LATE RAMADAS, AGED MAJOR, R/O HNO 9-104/1, SRI RAM NAGAR, 5TH ROAD, GAVARAVARAM, SANIVARAPUPET PANCHAYAT, ELURU.534001 ...RESPONDENT(S): CORAM:- THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE Mrs.JUSTICE LISA GILL THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA DATE:- 29th April, 2026. ****** PRESENT: Mr.M.Solomon Raju, Advocate for Petitioner Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for Respondent. 2 The Court made the following Judgment:(Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ninala Jayasurya) Challenge in the Writ Petition is to order dated 06.11.2025 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Godavari District at Eluru (for short “the DCDRC”) in C.C.No.143 of 2024. 2) The 4th respondent herein filed the said complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”) against the writ petitioner / opposite party with a prayer to direct him to pay the Chit maturity amount of Rs.2,40,000/- with interest from 01.08.2023 till the date of order (Approximately Rs.40,000/-) and compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- for irreparable and irrevocable loss sustained by the complainant on account of dereliction, callousness and for other reliefs. 3) The Writ Petitioner / opposite party filed response/version inter alia raising a contention that the DCDRC has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint / claim. Learned DCDRC by majority decision rendered by the Members allowed the complaint, in part and directed the opposite party / writ petitioner to pay Rs.2,40,000/- to the complainant / 4th respondent with 6% interest from the date of last installment and costs of Rs.20,000/-. It was also ordered that if the opposite party fails to comply the said order within stipulated period, the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- shall carry 9% interest from the date of order, till realization. 3 4) Taking contrary view, the learned President of DCDRC passed dissenting order holding that the matter involves disputed questions of fact which requires elaborate evidence and the DCDRC cannot decide the same in exercise of summary jurisdiction in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of City Union Bank Ltd., Vs. Chandra Mohan1 and disposed of the complaint giving liberty to the complainant to approach competent Civil Court for redressal of the grievance. 5) Assailing the majority view of the members, in the order dated 06.11.2025, learned counsel submits that the same is not correct and learned Members ought to have concurred with the view taken by learned President of the DCDRC. He submits that in view of the difference of opinion, the matter ought to have been referred to a third person for answering the issues. In this regard, he refers to Section 47(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. He also made submissions to impress upon the Court that since an issue with regard to jurisdiction of the DCDRC was raised, the present Writ Petition is maintainable and remedy of statutory Appeal is not a bar. He submits that in fact claims with regard to chit amounts have to be made under Chit Funds Act, 1982 and in view of the specific remedy under the provisions of the said Act, the claims if any have to be made before the Registrar of Chits and without appreciating the said 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 341 4 legal aspect, the Members of the DCDRC issued directions, though the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction. He, therefore, urges for setting aside the order dated 06.11.2025. 6) This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 7) At the outset, it may be pertinent to refer to Section 47(3) which reads as follows: “Section 47(3): Where the members of a Bench differ in opinion on any point, the points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority, if there is a majority, but if the members are equally divided, they shall state the point or points on which they differ, and make a reference to the President who shall either hear the point or points himself or refer the case for hearing on such point or points by one or more of the other members and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the members who have heard the case, including those who first heard it: Provided that the President or the other member, as the case may be, shall give opinion on the point or points so referred within a period of one month from the date of such reference.” 8) From a reading of the above referred provision of law, it is clear that the matter / complaint can be referred to third member in the event there is a difference of opinion between two members of the Commission. Such a situation is not present in the instant case and therefore, the contention advanced by learned counsel for petitioner that in view of difference of 5 opinion, the matter ought to have been referred to opinion of the third member as contemplated under Section 47(3), is rejected. 9) As regards the contention that impugned order was passed despite raising plea that the DCDRC has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint, more particularly in view of the separate enactment i.e., Chit Funds Act, it is not in dispute that the petitioner / opposite party had not approached this Court at the first instance raising issue of jurisdiction. He chose to contest the matter. Merely because the plea with regard to jurisdiction was purportedly not properly appreciated, cause of action for filing Writ Petition does not arise. The very same grounds viz., lack of jurisdiction or incorrect appreciation of the plea with regard to jurisdiction can as well be raised before the SCDRC, which is the appellate authority. When the statute i.e., Consumer Protection Act, envisages specific statutory remedies including appeals against the orders of DCDRC, the same cannot be bypassed. Further, this Court finds no sufficient grounds to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of effective remedy of Appeal, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. 10) However, considering the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner, liberty is granted to the petitioner to workout remedies against the impugned order, in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court 6 has not examined the merits of the case and any appeal that may be instituted by the writ petitioner shall be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. 11) With the aforesaid liberty, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 12) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. (LISA GILL) (NINALA JAYASURYA) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Date: 29.04.2026 Ssv 7 THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE Mrs.LISA GILL THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 12054 OF 2026 Date:29.04.2026 Ssv