M/S. FAIR AIR ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. versus N.K. MODI

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 820 · Decided: 20-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
M/S. FAIR AIR ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. 
v. 
N.K. MODI 
AUGUST 20, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Sections 3, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 
22, 23, 24, 25 and 27. 
C 
Arbitration Act, 1940: Sections 2(a) and 34. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Sectio11 9. 
Consumer Protection Act-Proceedings before fornms created under the 
Act-Nature of-Applicability of Section 34 of Arbitration Act-Contract for 
D installation of ce11trally air-co11ditio11ed plant i11 respondellt's house-Dis-
pute-Complaint before Consumer Commission-Application for stay of 
proceedings-National Consumer Commission holding that Section 34 of 
Arbitration Act, 1940 was not available to stay the proceedings-Ap-
peal-Held proceedings before the District Fornm, State Commission and the 
National Commission are legal proceedings-The District Fornm, National 
E Commission and the State Conimission are judicial autho1ities falling under 
Section 34. of the Arbitration Act-But by invocation of Section 34, the party 
to the proceedings does not get an automatic right to have the proceedings 
pending before the judicial authorities staye~Section 34 giv~s discretion to 
the autho1ities to stay the proceedi11gs on their satisfying that there was 1io 
F ·sufficient reason why the matter should not be refe"ed in accordance with the 
agreeme/11 between the parties for arbitration when the party seeking stay of 
the proceedings was and .still remains ready and willing to do all things 
necessary to the proper conduct of the arbitration--17wugh the District Fornm 
State Commission and National Commission are judicial authorities, for the 
G purpose of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act yet it would be appropriate that 
these fornms are at liberty to proceed with the matters in accordance with 
the provisions of the Act rather than relegating the parties to an arbitration 
proceedings--171e reason is that the Act intends to relieve the consumers of 
the cumbersome arbitration proceedings or civil action unless the fornms on 
their own and on the peculiar facts and circumstances of a particular case, 
H come to the conclusion that the appropriate fornm for adjudication of the 
820 
... 
FAIRAIR ENGRS. PVT. LTD. v. N.K. MODI 
821 
disputes would be otherwise those given in the Act-Considered from this A 
perspective this dispute need not be refe"ed to arbitration under clause (12) 
of the agreement and the matter could be decided on merits by the State 
Commission itself 
1he Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi v. 1he Employees of the Bharat Bank, 
(1950] 1 SCR 459; Associated Cement Companie.< Ltd. v. P.N. Shamza & 
Anr., [1965] 2 SCR 366 ; Sarojini Ramaswami v. Union of India, (1992] 4 
SCC 506; Canara Bank v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors., 
JT (1995) 3 SC 42 and Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, 
(1994] 1 sec 243, referred to. 
B 
c 
Arbitration agreement-Contract for carrying out installation of a 
centrally air-conditioned plant in respondent's residential house---Breach of 
contract-Dispute about non existence of arbitration agreement-Clause 12 of 
quotation-When the quotation was offered with the conditions enumerated 
thereunder, the respondent merely made a counter-offer giving technical 
details of a part of the offer as cou111er-offer and when it was accepted by the D 
appellant, the parties agreed for that offer and the counter offe,...../n other 
words, they became an integral part of the co/llract of the parties-1hereby, 
clause ( 12) of the agreeme/11 became an integral part of the conlract-17ius, 
there 1vas an arbitration agreen1ent between the parties. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11459 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.92 of the National Con-
-
sumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in F.A. No 62 of 1991. 
R.S. Suri for the Appellants. 
Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Binu Tamta and Yatish Mohan for the Respon-
dent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
F 
G 
This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated November H 
822 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
13, 1992 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New 
Delhi (the "Commission", for short) passed in First Appeal No. 62/1991. 
B 
c 
The admitted facts are that the appellant had entered into a contract 
with the respondent to carry out installation of a centrally air-conditioned 
pl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.