BILAL NAZKI,J. - (1.) THESE two revi -sions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and they are disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) TWO complaints came to be filed before the District Consumers Forum, Vizianagaram. In the complaint out of which CRP No. 2439 of 2002 arises the complainant contended that she became a subscriber of the chit and was allotted a number for a total chit amount of Rs. 2,50,000/ - payable on monthly subscrip -tions @ Rs. 5,000/ - per month for 50 months commencing from 6 -2 -2000 to 21 -3 -2004. As the complainant was in need of money for bypass surgery of her mother and also father, she participated in the auction on 18 -2 -2001. She was the highest bidder of Rs. 1,57,000/ - as against Rs. 2,50,000/ -. She produced all the relevant documents, but this amount was not given to her.
(3.) IN the second complaint which has given rise to CRP No. 3365 of 2002 the complainant claimed that he was petrol bunk owner. He was induced by the other side to become a member of the chit fund. According to the complainant, he was promised that if he would take two chits, he could avail the chit amount in the first auction for the first chit and the second one for the subsequent month. He was already facing some financial constraints and was paying a very heavy rate of interest towards bank and finan -ciers. Eventually he became a member of two chits each for Rs. 5,00,000/ - and the monthly subscription was Rs. 10,000/ - for each chit. The period of chit was 50 months. The chits commenced on 27 -8 -1998. According to him, he should have been declared successful bidder in the first auction, but that was not done, therefore there was deficiency of service. Eventually he was informed on 14 -2 -1979 that he had become a successful bidder and he was asked to give certain docu -ments. He furnished the sufficient sureties and documents, but the amount was not disbursed to him. Under these factual situations the complaints were filed. The revisions came up before a learned single Judge of this court. The main ground of challenge agitated before the learned single Judge appears to have been that the Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. The learned single Judge thought it fit to refer the matter to this court after framing the following question: Whether a subscriber of a chit fund company falls within the meaning of consumer under Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and whether such subscribers can invoke the jurisdiction of the District Fora, State Commission or National Commission under the provisions of the Consumer Protec -tion Act, 1986, if so, under what circumstances.  ;