M/S. EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED versus AFTAB SINGH

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 791 · Decided: 10-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
791
M/S. EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED
v.
AFTAB SINGH
(Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018)
in
(Civil Appeal Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017)
DECEMBER 10, 2018
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Consumer disputes, whether
arbitrable or not – Appellant-company was developing an integrated
township – Respondent submitted an application for allotment of
villa – In Buyer’s agreement, there was an arbitration clause
providing for settlement of disputes between the parties under
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Respondent filed complaint
before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
(NCDRC) – Appellant filed an application u/s.8 of the 1996 Act for
referring the matter to the Arbitration – NCDRC rejected the
application u/s.8 of the 1996 Act and held that in the light of the
Consumer Act and Court-evolved jurisprudence, amended sub-
section (1) of s.8 cannot be construed as a mandate to the Consumer
Forums, constituted under the Act, to refer the parties to Arbitration
in terms of the Arbitration agreement – Propriety of – Held: Proper
– Amendments u/s.8 of the 1996 Act were aimed to minimize the
scope of judicial authority to refuse reference to arbitration and
only ground on which reference could have been refused was that
it prima facie finds that no valid arbitration agreement exists – But,
amendment in s.8 cannot be given such expansive meaning and
intent so as to inundate entire regime of special legislations where
disputes were held to be non-arbitrable – However, in the event a
person entitled to seek an additional special remedy provided under
the statutes does not opt for the additional/special remedy and he is
a party to an arbitration agreement, there is no inhibition in disputes
being proceeded in arbitration – It is only the case where specific/
special remedies are provided for and which are opted by an
aggrieved person that judicial authority can refuse to relegate the
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 791
791
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
792                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
parties to the arbitration – Thus, complaint under Consumer
Protection Act being a special remedy, despite there being an
arbitration agreement the proceedings before Consumer Forum have
to go on – No error committed by the NCDRC in rejecting application
filed by appellant u/s.8 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 –
Amended s.8 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act,
2015.
Dismissing the review petitions, the Court
HELD:  1.  This Court in the series of judgments considered
the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as well as
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and laid down that
complaint under Consumer Protection Act being a special remedy,
despite there being an arbitration agreement the proceedings
before Consumer Forum have to go on and no error committed
by Consumer Forum on rejecting the application. There is reason
for not interjecting proceedings under Consumer Protection Act
on the strength of an arbitration agreement by Act, 1996. The
remedy under Consumer Protection Act is a remedy provided to
a consumer when there is a defect in any goods or services. The
complaint means any allegation in writing made by a complainant
has also been explained in Section 2(c) of the Act. The remedy
under the Consumer Protection Act is confined to complaint by
consumer as defined under the Act for defect or deficiencies
caused by a service provider, the cheap and a quick remedy has
been provided to the consumer which is the object and purpose
of the Act. [Para 25][809-E-H]
National Seeds Corporation Limited v. M. Madhusudan
Reddy and Another (2012) 2 SCC 506 : [2012] 2 SCR
1065 ; Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Limited
(2017) 9 SCC 729 : [2017] 10 SCR 285 ; A. Ayyasamy
v. A. Paramasivam and Others (2016) 10 SCC 386 :
[2016] 11 SCR 521 ; Lucknow Development Act v.
M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243 : [1993] 3 Suppl. SCR
615 ; Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural
Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (dead) Through LRs. And
others, (2004) 1 SCC 395 ; Fair Air Engineering Pvt.
Ltd. and another v. N.K. Modi, (1996) 6 SCC 385 :
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
793
[1996] 4 Suppl. SCR 820 ; Skypak Couriers Ltd. v.
Tata Chemicals, (2000) 5 SCC 294 : [2000] 1 Suppl.
SCR 324 ; Rosedale Developers Private Limited v.
Aghore Bhattacharya And Others (2018) 11 SCC 337
– referred to.
2. Not only the proceedings of Consumer Protection Act,
1986 are special proceedings whi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.