NCDRC

NCDRC

FA/572/2015

RAJ KUMAR SINGAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. PUMA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. ANKIT GOEL & MR. SANJAY KUMAR

30 May 2018

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
FIRST APPEAL NO. 572 OF 2015
 
(Against the Order dated 02/02/2015 in Complaint No. 60/2014 of the State Commission Punjab)
1. RAJ KUMAR SINGAL
S/O. SH. RAM PARKASH, R/O. H NO. 147, SECTOR-8-A,
CHANDIGARH.,
...........Appellant(s)
Versus 
1. M/S. PUMA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SCO 6-8, 1ST AND 2ND FLOOR, SECTOR-9-D, MADHYA MARG,
CHANDIGARH-160009
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. PUMA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,
SCO 6-8, 1ST AND 2ND FLOOR, SECTOR 9-D, MADHYA MARG,
CHANDIGARH-160009
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER

For the Appellant :NEMO
For the Respondent :
Mr.Saurabh Gupta, Advocate for
Mr.Gagan Gupta, Advocate for R-1
R-2 deleted vide order dt.19.10.2016

Dated : 30 May 2018
ORDER

O R D E R (ORAL)

 

        Delay condoned.

        This Appeal by the Complainant, is directed against the order dated 2.2.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (for short “the State Commission”) in MA/1226-1227/2014 in CC/60/2014.  By the impugned order, accepting the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Opposite Parties to the maintainability of the Complaint on the ground that there was an Arbitration Agreement between the parties, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint, inter alia  observing that in view of the Arbitration clause No.33 in the Buyer’s Agreement, it has no alternative but to refer the parties to settle their claim through the process of Arbitration.

        The case has been called out for hearing the second time but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Appellant.  Accordingly, we have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, the Opposite Parties in the Complaint.

        Having perused the order impugned in this Appeal, we are of the opinion that the State Commission erred in dismissing the Complaint on the afore-stated ground. 

 

 

The issue relating to the interpretation of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, came up for consideration before a larger Bench of this Commission in CC/701/2015 – Aftab Singh vs. M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr.   Vide order dated 13.7.2017, it has been held that in view of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), the existence of an Arbitration Agreement between the parties did not act as a bar for entertaining the Complaints under the Act.  The said decision has since been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissal of the Appeal preferred against the said decision.

        In light of the said decision, the Appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and the afore-noted Complaint is restored to the Board of the State Commission for adjudication on merits.

        Parties/their Counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 18.7.2018 for further proceedings in accordance with law.

        The Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.

 
......................J
D.K. JAIN
PRESIDENT
......................
M. SHREESHA
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.