Haryana

StateCommission

A/32/2022

IM SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

TIKONA DIGITAL NETWORK PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

30 Aug 2024

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                Date of Institution: 04.02.2022

                                                          Date of final hearing: 30.08.2024

                                                     Date of Pronouncement: 30.08.2024

 

First Appeal No.32 of 2022

 

Mr. I.M. Sharma, Earlier resident of 930, Sector-15, Part-II, 2^nd Floor, Gurugram-122001.

Present Address, 543, Sector 12-A, Panchkula-134109.  .....Appellant

•  

Tikona Digital Network Pvt. Ltd., 2^nd Floor, LBS Marg, Bhandup West, Mumbai-400078.

CORAM:             Mr. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member

                             Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member

 

Argued by:-       Mr. I.M. Sharma, Appellant in person.

None for respondent.

 

                                                ORDER

NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                    Challenge in this Appeal No.32 of 2022 of appellant/complainant has been invited to legality of order dated 11.05.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Gurugram (“District Consumer Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No.509 of 2017, vide which complaint of complainants has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction by observing that matter was to be referred to Arbitrator for Arbitration.

2.                Factual matrix: In his complaint, complainant has sought refund of Rs.767/- illegally raised against him along with amount of Rs.1000/- pending with ‘OP’ on the ground that connection is not in use since 27.03.2016 and he has been sending request for refund through e-mails. Respondent appeared in the complaint and raised its defence on various pleas. The learned District Consumer Commission has dismissed the complaint in a manner as already stated herein before. Complainant has filed instant appeal.

3.                Record reflects that complainant has been appearing in person. However, since last three dates (including one today); the main counsel for respondent did not appear, though on 08.05.2024, his proxy had appeared.

4.                Today this Commission has heard complainant appearing in person, who has just put forward single contention that his complaint needs to be decided on merits. This Commission proceeds to decide this appeal, in absentia of counsel for respondent.

5.                This Commission is of firm opinion that reason given by learned District Consumer Commission to non suit the complaint are not as per settled legal proposition which is attracted on substratum of matter in issue in this appeal. Telephone users, like complainant in present case, may no longer need to go through lengthy process of arbitration to settle problem/grievance with service provider. Arbitration Agreement does not preclude the jurisdiction of Consumer Court, if complainant opts to seek redress through Consumer Forum after dispute arises. Remedies before Consumer Forums/Commissions are in addition to those provided under Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as “Dharamvir Vs. Jai Parkash Associates Ltd. and others” Consumer Case No.675 of 2016, decided on 12.12.2023 has recently answered in affirmative, identical issue, akin to one, involved in present appeal. The issue before Hon’ble National Commission was: whether an Arbitration Clause in Agreement creates a bar on the consumer for approaching before Consumer Redressal Forums?  By relying upon latest judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled “EMAAR MGF Land Ltd. Vs. Aftab Singh” (2019) 12 SCC 751; Hon’ble National Commission in Dharamvir’s case (Supra) has held that: complaint before it is maintainable, as Consumer Protection Act allows complaint to be filed before Hon’ble National Commission exceeding Rs.One crore.

6.                By following above guiding principles, this Commission holds that impugned order dated 11.05.2018 cannot be allowed to stand at legal pedestal. It is perverse and accordingly set-aside. This appeal is allowed. As a legal consequence so flowing; Consumer Complaint No.509 of 2017 is restored to its original number on the board of learned District Consumer Commission-Gurugram for its decision on merits, by following due process of law. Both parties would now appear before learned District Consumer Commission-Gurugram on 14.10.2024 for further proceedings in complaint. Since, complaint is of the year, 2017, therefore, learned District Consumer Commission-Gurugram would endeavour to dispose it off, as per law, as expeditiously as possible. Registry of this Commission would ensure that original record along with copy of this order must be dispatched forthwith so as to reach at its destination (District Consumer Commission-Gurugram) well before the date now given (14.10.2024) for appearance of both parties before it.

7.                Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

8.                A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

9.                File be consigned to record room.

                                    

Date of pronouncement: 30^th August, 2024

 

 

 

                             S.C. Kaushik                            Naresh Katyal                                             Member                                   Judicial Member

Addl. Bench                             Addl. Bench