PRESIDENT
NATIONAL
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW
DELHI
CONSUMER
CASE NO. 427,430-440 of 2014
Versus
M/s Unitech
LTD (Opposite party –OP)
Para 18. It
was also contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party that since the
agreements between the parties contains arbitration clause, arbitration and not
a complaint before this Commission is the appropriate remedy. I, however, find
no merit in this contention. As provided in Section 3 of the Consumer
Protection Act, the provision of this Act are in addition to the other remedies
available to a consumer. Therefore, the availability of arbitration as a remedy
does not debar the complainant from approaching a consumer forum in a case of
deficiency in the services rendered to him by the service provider or adoption
of unfair trade practices by him. This issue came up for consideration of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Seeds Corporation Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy
& Anr. (2012)2 SCC 506 and after taking into consideration the provisions
of the Section 8 of the Arbitration Act of 1996 and the Section 3 of the C.P. Act
it was held that the plain language of Section 3 of the C.P. Act makes it clear
that the remedy available in that Act is in addition to and not in derogation
of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that
the complaint filed by a consumer before the consumer fora would be
maintainable despite their being an arbitration clause in the agreement to
refer the dispute to the Arbitrator. In view of the above referred
authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was later
followed by a Three Members Bench of this Commission in DLF Ltd. Vs. Mridul
Estate Pvt. Ltd., R.P. No.412 of 2011 decided on 13-05-2013, the aforesaid
contention advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party is liable to
be rejected.
Warm Regards
For FEDERATION
OF RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION
KULDEEP KUMAR
KOHLI
PRESIDENT
No comments:
Post a Comment