State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Parshotam Dass Singla vs Unitech Ltd. on 25 April, 2016
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
Misc. Application No.17 of 2016
In
Consumer Complaint No.276 of 2015
Date of institution : 05.01.2016
Date of decision : 25.04.2016
Parshotam Dass Singla S/o Sh. Janki Dass, R/o H.No.253, Ward
No.8, Part 2, Samana, District Patiala.
....Complainant
Versus
1. Unitech Limited, Sector 107, Mohali, through its Managing
Director/Authorized Signatory.
2. Unitech Limited SCO-189-191, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh,
through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
....Opposite Parties
Application on behalf of the opposite
parties, under Section 8 read with Section 5
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, for referring the matter for arbitration.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
Present:-
For the complainant : Shri S.S. Gill, Advocate For the opposite parties : Ms Vertika H. Singh, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT:
M.A.No.17 of 2016:
This application has been filed by the applicants/opposite parties, under Section 8 read with Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, "the Act of 1996"), for referring the matter for arbitration. They contended therein that the complainant has filed the complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Misc. Application No.17 of 2016 2 In Consumer Complaint No.276 of 2015 Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act of 1986"), alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for not offering possession of the flat, in question. The allotment was made in his favour and subsequently Buyer's Agreement dated 13.04.2012 was executed between the parties and the complainant is relying upon the terms and conditions of that agreement. Clause 13 of that agreement itself contains Arbitration Clause and as per that Clause, all the disputes, differences and disagreements arising out or in connection with or in relation to the agreement, which could not be amicably settled, shall be finally decided by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1996. Therefore, the alleged disputes raised in the complaint are to be adjudicated in terms of this Clause; to which the parties have voluntarily agreed and those are to be adjudicated through Arbitration. As such, the complaint is not maintainable. Amendment in Section 8 of the Act of 1996, which has been made by virtue of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015, provides that a Judicial Authority, before which an action is brought in a matter, which is subject of an Arbitration Agreement, is liable to refer to the arbitrator, if a party to the agreement applies for the same, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or any Court, unless such authority finds that prima facie no valid Arbitration Agreement exists. Section 5 of that Act itself provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters covered by that part, no Judicial Authority shall intervene, except where it is so provided in that part itself. In view of the amended provisions of the Act, the Commission is bound to refer the Misc. Application No.17 of 2016 3 In Consumer Complaint No.276 of 2015 disputes raised in the complaint to the Arbitrator and the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable.
2. The application was contested by the complainant, by filing detailed reply. In his reply, he admitted that he filed the complaint, under Section 17 of the Act of 1986, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and that the allotment of the flat was made in his favour and subsequently Buyer's Agreement dated 13.04.2012 was executed between them; which contained Clause 13, pertaining to the Arbitration. He did not dispute that Section 8 of the Act of 1996 stands amended and that it contains Section 5 also; which has been reproduced in the application. He denied the other contentions raised in the application and pleaded that the flat was allotted to the complainant before entering into the Buyer's Agreement. He has invoked the additional remedy available to him under Section 3 of the Act of 1986 which is independent of any other law in force. The Commission is fully competent to hear and decide the complaint, in view of the provisions of the Act of 1986. He prayed for the dismissal of the application, with costs.
3. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
4. The question, which forms the subject matter of the present application, already stands decided by this Commission in M.A. No.3239 of 2015 in C.C. No.219 of 2015 (Pavitpal Singh Vs. EMAAR MGF Land Limited). It has already been held that it cannot be said that by virtue of the amendment made in Section 8 of the Act Misc. Application No.17 of 2016 4 In Consumer Complaint No.276 of 2015 of 1996, the complaint is no more maintainable before the Fora under the Act of 1986, on account of the existence of the Arbitration Clause in the Agreement executed between the parties. The application is dismissed accordingly.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER April 25, 2016.
(Gurmeet S)