Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/22/76

BELL FINVEST INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BABULAL - Opp.Party(s)

SH.KRITESH GUPTA

17 Apr 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

                                  REVISION PETITION NO. 76 OF 2022

(Arising out of order dated 23.05.2022 passed in C.C.No.130/2019 by District Commission, Dhar)

 

BELL FINVEST INDIA LIMITED.                                                                 …          PETITIONERS

 

Versus

                 

BABULAL S/O SHRI HIRALAL & ORS.                                                        …         RESPONDENTS.

                                      

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

                 HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA :      MEMBER

  

                                      O R D E R

17.04.2023

            Shri Kritesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.

            None for the respondent no.1 and 4.

            Shri Nitin Pandit, learned counsel for the respondent 2 and 3.

                                               

As per A. K. Tiwari :                       

                        The petitioner/opposite party no.1 has filed this revision petition against the order dated 23.05.2022 passed in C.C.No.130/2019 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dhar (For short ‘District Commission) whereby the petitioner’s application filed under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been dismissed.

2.                Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per agreement executed between the parties, the dispute can only be resolved by the Arbitrator but the complainant/respondent no.1 had filed the present complaint before the District Commission, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable before the District Commission. The District Commission did not consider this important aspect and has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.

-2-

3.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, we find that even there is an Arbitration Clause, the complaint can be very well decided by the District Commission. Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/S Emmar MGF Land Limited Vs Aftab Singh I (2019) CPJ 5 (SC) has held that an arbitration clause in the agreement does not bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to entertain the complaint. Thus this objection of the petitioner has no stand.

4.                Thus we find that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the application filed by the opposite party no.1/petitioner regarding maintainability of complaint.

5.                Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 29.05.2023.

6.                Parties are directed to contest the matter on merits.

7.                The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law after giving opportunities to parties to contest the matter on merits.

8.                With the aforesaid observations and directions, this revision petion stands dismissed.  However, no order as to costs.

 

     ( A. K. Tiwari)         (Dr. Srikant Pandey)      (D. K. Shrivastava)

    Presiding Member               Member                            Member