Haryana

StateCommission

RP/34/2016

FUTURE FUELS DMA GAIL GAS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJESH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

SAMINA DHIR

16 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                 Revision Petition No.  34 of 2016

                                                 Date of the Institution: 26.05.2016

                                                 Date of Decision:        16.08.2016

 

 

 

The Manager, Future Fuels DMA Gail Gas Limited, Star House, 2^nd Floor, Opp. Civil Hospital, Bhalgarh Road, Sonepat through Sh. S.P. Sharma son of Sh. B.D. Sharma, Chief Operating Officer, Gail Gas Limited, Jubilee Tower, 13^th Tower, B 35-36, Sector 1, Noida – 201301.

…..Petitioner

 

VERSUS

 

Rajesh Kumar son of Sh. Kali Ram, resident of Kothi No.11, Sector 15, Sonepat, District Sonepat, Haryana.

….. Respondent-Complainant

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                  

Present:-    Mr. Rujhan Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner

                   None for the respondent-complainant

 

                                                O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

          By filing the present revision petition, The Manager, Future Fuels DMA Gail Gas Limited-opposite party has challenged the order dated April 25^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 8 read with Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Arbitration Act, 1996) for referring the parties to resolve the matter, was dismissed.

2.      The issue for consideration is as to whether or not the dispute can be referred to the arbitrator?

3.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as per Arbitral Clause in the Registration Form dated February 18^th, 2011, it was mandatory for the District Forum to refer the parties to arbitration.

4.      Section 3 of the Consumer Act is relevant to adjudicate the point at issue. So, it is necessary to reproduce the provisions of Section 3 of the Consumer Act:-

“3. Act not in derogation of any other law.—The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

5.      Upon reading of the Section 3 of the Consumer Act, it is clear that it provides additional remedy and existence of arbitration clause, in the agreement, to settle disputes between the parties, is not a bar to entertain a complaint filed by the consumer, alleging deficiency in service in providing services etc.  It is a remedy in addition to and not in derogation to any other remedy available to an individual.  Hon’ble Supreme Court in Skypak Couriers Ltd. v. Tata Chemicals Ltd., (2000) 5 SCC 294 held as under:-

                   “Even if there exists an arbitration clause in an agreement and a complaint is made by the consumer, in relation to a certain deficiency of service, then the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar to the entertainment of the complaint by the Redressal Agency, constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

5.      In another case Trans Mediterranean Airways v. Universal Exports 2011(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 472 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

                   “In our view, the protection provided under the CP Act to consumers is in addition to the remedies available under any other statute. It does not extinguish the remedies under another statute but provides an additional or alternative remedy      

6.      In a recent judgment Lt. Col. Anil Raj and Another Versus M/s Unitech Limited and another, C.C. No.346 of 2013, decided on May 02^nd, 2016 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, President, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi after considering the amendment in Section 8 of the Arbitration (Amendment) Act, 2015 held that in spite of the recent amendments in the Arbitration Act that the protection provided to the consumers under this Act is in addition to the remedies available under any other statute, including the consentient arbitration under the Arbitration Act.  It was held that the complaint filed by a consumer before the Consumer Fora would be maintainable despite there being an arbitration clause in the agreement to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator. 

7.      In view of the above, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.

 

Announced 16.08.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

U.K