State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

West Bengal

BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)

31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE

KOLKATA – 700 027


S.C. CASE NO-RC/09/20



DATE OF FILING : 06.03.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 22.5.09



APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS :

1. Family Credit Limited,

(formerly know as Apeejay Finance Group Ltd.)

having its office at “Technopolis”, 7th Floor, Wing A,

Plot No 4, Block – BP, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700 091,2nd Floor, Branch Office 308, Bengal Stristi Complex, City Centre, Durgapur, Pin –713216.



RESPONDENTS/O.P.S : :

1. Md. Alam Ansari,

Son of Md. Sabur Ansari,

Resident of Village and Post – Bagmundi,

P.S- Bagmundi, District- Purulia, West Bengal.





BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE :

PRESIDENT : Shri Aloke Chakrabarti.

MEMBER : Shri. A.K.Ray.

MEMBER : Smt. Silpi . Majumder.



FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Shri G.S. Pal. Feroze Ahmed. (Advocates)

FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S. : Shri H. Bramhachari.

(Advocate)







Shri A.K. Ray., Member



This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 6.2.09 passed by the Dist Forum, Purulia in complaint case no 16 of 2008. An application u/s 5 & 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 was filed by the OP/ Present revisionist on the grounds that the case was squarely within the scope and ambit of the agreement of arbitration and the subject matter and the substance of the present case ought to be referred to arbitration in terms of article 17 of the arbitration clause of the agreement executed between the parties on 17.12.03. The OP also prayed for staying the present case and prayed for referring the complaint to arbitration in terms of section 8 of the said Act . The application was opposed by the Complainant stating inter alia that the existence of the arbitration clause would not be a bar to entertain the complaint by the Forum. It appears that the Forum below considered series of decisions relied on by the OP. It also perused a copy of the agreement in question and found that no where in the said agreement there was any seal and signature to prove that the agreement was duly certified by the competent officer. Therefore , section 8(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was not complied with. In their objection petition against the application u/s 5 & 8 of the aforesaid Act filed by the OP/ present revisionist the Complainant/ Respondent before us stated inter alia that it is a settled principle of law that when a complaint is made by a consumer in relation to certain deficiency in service then the existence of arbitration clause would not be a bar towards entertainment of a complaint by a redressal agency constituted under the C.P. Act, 1986 which is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.



2. The Forum below relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2000 Page 2008 wherein it was held that even if their exists an arbitration clause in an agreement and a complaint is made by the consumer in relation to certain deficiency of service then the existence of 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. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court the Forum below was of the view that it enjoyed ample jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and accordingly the petition dated 4.8.08 filed u/s 5 & 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was rejected on contest without cost. We have no reasons to interfere with the same and therefore the instant revision petition fails to succeed. Earlier , in an order dated 26.9.08 passed in case no FA/08/160 this Commission inferred while dealing with a similar case that “it would be appropriate that these Forums created under the Act are at liberty to proceed with the matters in accordance with the provisions of the Act rather than relegating the parties to an arbitration proceeding pursuant to a contract entered into by the parties . The reason is that the Act intends to relieve the consumers of the cumbersome arbitration proceedings or civil action unless the forums on their own and on peculiar facts and circumstances of the particular case, come to the conclusion that the appropriate forum for adjudication of the disputes would be otherwise than those given in the Act .” There is no reason for us to deviate from the aforesaid stand.



3. We however make it clear that we have not considered other aspects including merit of the complaint case filed before the Forum below which will proceed with the complaint matter as per law.

4. It is therefore ordered that the revision petition be dismissed on contest without cost.





Member Member President