State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
H D F C Bank Ltd vs Ashok Pandharinath Bhise on 4 September, 2024
1 RP/18/2023
Date of filing :23.03.2023
Date of order :04.09.2024
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
REVISION PETITION NO. : 18 OF 2023
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 187 OF 2021
DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION : JALNA.
HDFC Bank Ltd,. Revision Petitioner.
Beside Raymond Showroom, (Adv.U.N.Shete)
Near Shivaji Statue, Tq.& Dist.Jalna.
Through Power of Attorney Holder,
Shri Rahul S/o Tatyasaheb Gade,
R/o C/o HDFC Bank Ltd,.
Nirala Bazar,
Opp. Vodafone Gallery, Aurangabad.
VERSUS
1. Mr.Ashok Pandharinath Bhise, Respondent No.1
R/o Hasta Pokhari, Tq.Ambad, (Adv.Rahul Patil &
Dist. Jalna Adv.V.D.Solanke)
2. Sai Krushna Motors, Respondent No.2
Near Dhavaleshwar Mandir,
Opp. Tapasya Hospital, New Mondha,
Rajur road, Jalna.
CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon'ble Presiding Member.
Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon'ble Member.
JUDGMENT
Per Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon'ble Presiding Member.
This revision petition is directed against the order passed by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , Jalna ('District Commission' for short) in C.C.No.187/2021 2 RP/18/2023 under S.47(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 ( 'C.P.Act' for short). By impugned order District Commission stayed the proceeding of arbitration bearing No. RII 2028/2022 till further order.
2. Respondent No.1 has filed C.C.No.187/2021 against revision petitioner and respondent no.2 for the reason that, in purchase of tractor under Government scheme providing subsidy of 50% or Rs.90,000/- whichever is less. Respondent No.1 who is the original complainant averred in the complaint that there is deficiency on the part of the revision petitioner and respondent no.2 in dealing with the purchase of that tractor. At the time when proceeding before District Commission was at the last stage of the hearing, revision petitioner started arbitration proceeding so as to affect the proceeding before the District Commission. It is therefore respondent no.1 moved stay application before District Commission in which the arbitration proceeding initiated by revision petitioner has been stayed till further order by District Commission.
3. District Commission while passing impugned order observed that when the proceeding before it was at last stage of argument the arbitration proceeding has been initiated, that would affect the present case before it. Since the arbitration proceeding initiated after the complaint has been filed before it and during the pendency of the proceeding it has jurisdiction to stay the proceeding. Hence District Commission stayed the proceeding.
3 RP/18/2023
4. We heard Adv.U.N.Shete for the revision petitioner. Adv.Solanke for respondent no.1 is not present but he has filed written notes of argument on 25/06/2024. He remained absent today and also on the last date. Therefore we proceed with the matter as matter has been kept by District Commission for decision.
5. Adv.U.N.Shete for the revision petitioner submitted that the arbitral proceeding before the arbitrator cannot be stayed by District Commission as proceeding before arbitrator are special proceeding under special Act namely Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015. According to him District Commission committed an error in staying the arbitral proceeding and exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it. Therefore impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.
6. On the other hand, it is the written submission of Adv.Solanke for respondent no.1 that revision petitioner and respondent no.2 jointly cheated and deprived respondent no.1 from the benefit of the benevolent scheme. Respondent no.1 came to the District Commission to file complaint for redressal of his grievance. Thereafter, when the matter filed by respondent no.1 was at last stage, such arbitral proceedings were initiated by revision petitioner merely to defeat the proceeding before District Commission. As such, impugned order has rightly been passed by District Commission and there is no error in it.
4 RP/18/2023
7. The recent legal position as to the arbitral proceeding and proceeding under Consumer Protection Act has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M.Hemlatha Devi and others
-Vs- B.Udaysri, Civil Appeal No.6500-6501 of 2023 and Emaar MGF Land V/s Aftab Sing, (2019) 12 SCC 751. In the aforesaid ruling it is now settled that arbitration agreement does not preclude jurisdiction of consumer Commission, if the consumer opts to seek redress through such Commission after dispute arises. In Hemlatha(supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court highlighted that the main reason behind granting such discretion to the consumer is that consumer Commission have wider powers than arbitral tribunal to award certain specialised remedies and penalise non-compliance with their orders.
8. As such we are of the considered view that in the present matter respondent no.1 opted to go in the consumer Commission for redressal of his grievance prior to the point of initiation of arbitration proceeding by revision petitioner there is nothing illegal in it. Consumer Commission is having the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint filed by respondent No.1. However, the proceeding before arbitrator cannot be interfered by District Commission for the reason that there is no such power vested in it. Hence it can be safely hold that to the extent of staying the proceeding of arbitration District Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction and thereby committed error. Resultantly, the impugned order is required to be modified to the extent that stay granted by District Commission to the arbitral proceeding is hereby quashed and set aside. In the facts and circumstances it would be just to 5 RP/18/2023 direct the parties to bear their own cost. Hence we pass the following order.
ORDER
1. The impugned order is hereby modified to the extent that order granting stay to the arbitral proceeding by District Commission is hereby quashed and set aside.
2. Stay granted by this Commission to the proceeding of the District Commission is hereby vacated and District Commission may proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
3. Parties to bear their own cost.
4. Copy of this judgment be furnished to both sides free of cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
N.C.Kumbre M.S.Sonawane
Member Presiding Member