CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT: THE GAME OF ARBITRATION CLAUSE

-
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT: THE GAME OF ARBITRATION CLAUSE
SHUBHAM BUDHIRAJA
MOBILE-9654055315
CSSHUBHAMBUDIRAJA1994@GMAIL.COM

The Consumer Protection act, 1986 (hereinafter CPA) is a social legislation and cannot be interpreted in as technical manner as to take away its basic fundamental roots. On this note, I am obliged to share this landmark verdict decided by Hon’ble Federal court in matter of  Emaar MGF Land Limited
Vs: Aftab Singh Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017.  The Brief facts of this case are that the Complainant had entered into a buyers agreement dated 06.05.2018 with the (Builder) Opposite Party whereas the agreement contain one arbitration clause according to which all disputes must bring before arbitration. Further the cause of action arise on 27th July 2015 , when the complainant filed the complaint before National commission praying the possession of said flat for which he agreed into the buyers agreement. The Opposite Party seeks extra time and filed its written statement. However in the meantime , the Opposite Party invoked the arbitration clause and filed the application under section 8 of arbitration and conciliation act, 1996. Under section 8 of arbitration act, the Opposite Party place its reliance on section 7(2) meaning thereby the arbitration clause has the same importance as that of an arbitration agreement. i.e. Deemed Arbitration Agreement. Thus , the single member National commission referred this question before Larger bench. The larger bench held that the arbitration clause cannot be invoked when the consumer opt to file consumer complaint in contrary. Thereafter , the Builder moves before Delhi High court under section 37(1)(a) of arbitration act,1986 to set aside the order of National commission rejecting Section 8 Application. The Delhi HC rejected the said application for want of proper jurisdiction. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme court both in Civil appeal as well as Review Petition have agreed to the observations made by the larger bench, National Commission. The Ratio of this Judgment is very Important to understand for future litigations. Here the Hon’ble Supreme court Widely construe the Provisions of CPA , Provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 and Arbitration and  Conciliation (Amendment) act, 2015 in togetherness with  law commission 246th Report and various Judicial Precedents. The Court construe Section 3(2) of arbitration  act which recognize the non arbitral schemes under other legislation. The court Find Present case under purview of this scheme only. Thereafter the court look into extent of Judicial Intervention under section 5. The Court also gave the example of a cheque bounce case where despite of having the arbitration agreement , the dispute can only be adjudicated by criminal court. Thus, the court find out that the mandate of section 8 of arbitration act is not justified in light of section 2(3) reorganization of non-arbitarble matters. The court also look into 246th law commission Repot and Provisions of Section 8 before 2015 amendment and after 2015 amendment.

There is one matter of National Seeds Corporation Limited v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and Anr. MANU/SC/0038/2012 : (2012) 2 SCC 506 where the Supreme court find out that the remedy of arbitration is not the only remedy available to a grower. Rather, it is an optional remedy. He caneither seek reference to an arbitrator or file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. If the grower opts for the remedy of arbitration, then it may be possible to say that he cannot, subsequently, file complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. However, if he chooses to file a complaint in the first instance before the competent Consumer Forum, then he cannot be denied relief by invoking Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Moreover, the plain language of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection 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 Court in Present case briefly explained the Right in rem and Right in persona in connection with Complaints under Consumer Protection act. The Court without setting aside the ratio of previous Judicial Precedents , decided a new ratio that - in the event a person entitled to seek an additional special remedy provided under the statutes does not opt for the additional/special remedy and he is a party to an arbitration agreement, there is no inhibition in disputes being proceeded in arbitration. It is only the case where specific/special remedies are provided for and which are opted by an aggrieved person that judicial authority can refuse to relegate the parties to the arbitration. Thus, it all depends upon discretion of a complainant whether he opted for complaint under consumer protection act or refer the matter to arbitration. But once he opted either of remedy, he is not allowed to take himself back and he is bound by estoppel.

Comments

  1. UnknownFebruary 10, 2019 at 1:37 AM

    About time someone protects us.

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownFebruary 10, 2019 at 7:52 AM

    very well written

    ReplyDelete
  3. S SharmaFebruary 10, 2019 at 9:26 AM

    Explanatory way is pretty good. Nexus explained very well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. NirmohiyaFebruary 10, 2019 at 5:58 PM

    You actually managed to make it so interesting, this is protection- explained simply...

    ReplyDelete
  5. XYZFebruary 10, 2019 at 7:51 PM

    very well explained

    ReplyDelete
  6. UnknownFebruary 10, 2019 at 10:23 PM

    Written beautifully and explained well!!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. UnknownFebruary 16, 2019 at 10:03 AM

    I don't know much about the concerned case law but you defined it well, I must appreciate your drafting and presentation skill.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

REPUGANCY UNDER ARTICLE 254 & TEST OF VALIDATING LAW

-
Image
  Shubham Budhiraja [1] [1] Company Secretary, LLB Final Year,DU & Bcom (H) The land acquisition falls in concurrent list and parliament in year 2013 has introduced a new act which provides for rehabilitation, compensation and procedure on land acquisition of property. The State of T.N has made 3 different state laws w.r.t. land acquisition which was struck off by the High Court. Thereafter, state of TN in year 2019 enacted the same law but with president assent under Article 254 to avoid the repugnancy with 2013 act under Article 254. The appeal filed before apex court w.r.t. repugnancy of 2019 state law with 2013 central law & test of validating the struck off law. The Supreme Court observed as: VALIDATING A LAW WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT Case Law Relevant Remarks National  Agricultural  Cooperative  Marketing  Federation  of India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union o...
Read more

Whether a person can be appointed as an arbitrator if his daughter is married to the son of the eldest brother of one of the parties in the arbitration proceedings?

-
Image
    Shubham Budhiraja [1] Two brothers running a family business in the form of a company and dispute arise between them and both decide to resolve through arbitration. During course of arbitration proceedings, one of party filed Section 14(2) r/w Section 15 Petition filed challenging mandate of arbitrator as being terminated because son of arbitrator is married to daughter of eldest brother of one of party and thus should be disqualified under Section 12(5) being ‘close family relationship’. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court declined the relief and held that neither the Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act nor the IBA Guidelines define the expression ‘close family relationship’. The plain language of Entry no. 9 indicates that it is not the legislative intent to render a distant relative of the parties to be ineligible for being appointed as an arbitrator, if both the parties so agree. It is not sufficient that the arbitrator is related to any one of the parties; the relation...
Read more

Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?

-
Image
  Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?   Under what circumstances, photocopy of agreement to sell can be relied upon as secondary evidence?   Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed a suit for possession against B on basis of agreement to sell executed in the year 1989. During the hearing, A filed IA for reading photocopy of agreement to sell as secondary evidence because he is not able to find the original agreement to sell. The Trial Court allowed the IA but in review rejected that because agreement to sell was insufficiently stamped therefore bar of section 35 of stamp act applies. The High Court confirmed the order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that bar of Section 35 will not apply because amendment of 1990 wherein explanation was added to the stamp act was substantive in nature and therefore new obligation of stamping cannot be imposed on agreement of sell executed between A and B. [2] ...
Read more