CC/41/2023

ORDER No.04

DTD. 30.05.2023

Today is fixed for admission hearing.

Ld. Adv. for the complainant is present.

          The case is taken up for hearing on the point of admission.

 Ld. Adv. for the complainant argued that  Arbitral Proceeding has started against the complainant behind his back and OP no.3 demanded Rs. 5,74,383/-.

He further argued that in such a situation complaint before this Commission under Consumer Protection Act is maintainable.

 He cited a decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in KRISHAN RADHU Vs THE EMMAR MGF CONSTRUCTION dtd. 21.12.2016.

 We have carefully gone through the same.

  We find no application of the said decision in the present case because the fact of the said case is totally different with reference to  the present case.

 In this context, we have carefully gone through the decision of Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C. in M/S Maa Construction Vs L & T Finance Limited and another (1^st appeal No.1621 of 2016). Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C. in  para no.11 held:-

 it is well settled that terms and conditions of the agreement  to the effect do not bar jurisdiction  of the Consumer Fora but when the parties of to proceed, first of all, before the arbitration,  in that event, the jurisdiction of this Commission stands barred.

Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C. further held that similar view has been taken by the Commission in the following other cases reported in II (2014) CPJ 109 (NC), I (2016) CPJ 552 (NC) and III (2017) CPJ 211 (NC).

Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C. further held in para-12:- From the above judgments of this Commission, the view of the Commission is very clear that proceedings under the Arbitration and Reconciliation act and proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot go together. Thus, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the present case.

As the complaint is not maintainable   under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, I desist from considering other issues raised in the appeal passed on the above decision as the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer protection Act, 1986, I do not find any force in the appeal and accordingly, appeal no.1621 of 2016 filed by the appellant is dismissed at the admission stage.

          From the aforesaid decision, it is clear before us that proceedings   under arbitration and conciliation act and proceedings under Consumer Protection Act, cannot go together.

     In the present case Arbitration proceedings started and disposed off against the complainant relating to dispute mentioned in this case, so the complaint before this Commission under Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable.

In view of above we are of the firmed view that the present case is not maintainable before this Commission because Arbitration proceedings has already been started in between complainants and opposite parties.

In view of above present case is not maintainable.

Hence,

It is

                                                     Ordered

that the present case be and the same is dismissed without being admitted.

Member                                  Member                                       President