LexSKYPAK COURIERS LTD. ETC. ETC. versus TATA CHEMICALS LTD. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SKYPAK COURIERS LTD. ETC. ETC. v. TATA CHEMICALS LTD. ETC. ETC. MAY 12, 2000 B [G.B. PATTANAIK, DORAISWAMY RAJU AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] Consumer protection Act, I986: National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Referring matters C to third person for consensual adjudication dehors the Arbitration Act- Then making the awards given by such third person rule of the court by passing orders based on the awards-Held, reference to a third person is not supposed to be an arbitration but a consensual aqjudication-Commission is not applying its own mind or aqjudication on disputes-It is merely D putting its imprimature on decisions given by third parties-By doing this it is abdicating its own fanctions and duties-Such a procedure is unwarranted ·, and u'!}ustified-Commission directed to forthwith discontinue such a practice -As regards the present cases disposed by Commission on the basis of the award by third person, reference being by consent to be treated reference to arbitrator under Arbitration Act-Awards to be treated as awards by E arbitrators-It will be open to parties to challenge the awards on such grounds as are available under Arbitration Act, I940 and/or the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, I996-final orders passed by Commission set aside- Matters remitted to Commission for decision accordingly. F G H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2500 of 1994. From the judgment and Order dated 7.2.94 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in O.P. No. 66of1992. Civil Appeal No. 4029of1994 Civil Appeal No. 2339 of 1996 WITH WITH WITH 324 SKYPAK COURIERS LTD. v. TATA CHEMICALS LTD. 325 Civil Appeal No. 4049 of 1996 A wrrn Civil Appeal No. 171of1997 F.S. Nariman, R.F. Nariman, Harish N. Salve, Jitendra Sharma, R. Sundaravaradan, N.N. Goswami, Raju Ramachandran, Bhimrao N. Naik, M.N. B Krishnamani, Sr. Advs., N. Ganpathy, R.C. Mishra, Dr. Meera Agarwal, Ramesh Chandra Mohra, G. Venkatesh Rao, K.V. Mohan, M.K. Dua, Sunil Kapoor, Santhosh K. Sethi, R.D. Upadhyay, Krishan Venugopal, Ms. Bina Madhawan, P.H. Parekh, S.C. Sharda, K.C. Dua, Tarun Dua, Y.P. Mahajan, L.N. Rao, Roy Abraham, Ms. Baby Krishnan, Tara Chandra Sharma, Ms. Sushma Suri and C S. Uday Kumar Sagar for the appearing parties. The following Order of the Court was delivered : All these Civil Appeals are being disposed of by this common Order. It is clarified that at this stage this Court is not going into the facts of any case but is only dealing with the propriety of the procedure. Followed by the D National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter for sake of convenience called the 'Commission') in all these matters. With the Industrial Revolution and development in the International Trade & Commerce, there has been a substantial increase of business and E trade, which resulted in a variety of consumer goods appearing in the market to cater to the needs of the consumers. The modem methed of advertisement in media, influence the mind of the consumers and notwithstanding the manufacturing defect or imperfection in the quality, a consumer is tempted to purchase the goods. There has been possibility of deficiency in the services rendered. For the welfare of such consumer and to protect the consumers F from the exploitation to provide protection of the interest of the consumers, the Parliament enacted the Consumer Protection Act, and the Act itself makes provision for the establishment of Commissions for settlement of the consumer disputes and matters connected therewith. The Commissions under the Act, are quasi judicial bodies and they are supposed to provide speedy and simple G redressal to consumer disputes and for that purpose, they have been empowered to give relief of a specified nature and in an appropriate way, to award compensation. On a detailed scrutiny of the different provisions of the Act and bearing in mind the powers conferred on the Commissions it is indeed difficult to conceive that such Commissions would be authorised to refer the disputes for a consensual adjudication, merely because .to arrive at H 326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. I S.C.R. A a decision, it would be necessary to take evidence in the proceedings. In the absence of any provision in the Act itself, authorising the Commission to refer a pending proceeding before it, on receipt of a complaint from a consumer, for being settled through a consensual adju
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.