Case reference

Dear Vijay,

You can file the Judgment of lower court i.e. State Commission before the National Forum as the same pertains to your case situation. However, it is the discretion of the Hon'ble members to consider the same or not. It is better to find out a judgement of National Forum to have better chances for consideration before the Hon'ble National Forum. 

Agreed with Mr. Rao.

Thanks for your attention towards post.

In State commission:

Application under Section 8 of the Amended Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:

"We can deal with this issue, from another angle also. If this contention raised is accepted, it will go against the basic spirit of 1986 Act. The said Act (1986) was enacted to protect poor consumers against might of the service providers/multinational companies/traders. As in the present case, the complainant has spent his entire life savings to get a unit, to have a roof over his head. His hopes were shattered. Litigation in the Consumer Fora is cost effective. It does not involve huge expenses and further it is very quick. A complaint in the State Commission can be filed, by making payment between Rs.2000/- to Rs.4000/- (in the present case Rs.4000/-). As per the mandate of 1986 Act,  a complaint is supposed to be decided within three months, from the date of service to the opposite party. In cases involving ticklish issues (like the present one, maximum not more than six months to seven months time can be consumed), whereas, to the contrary, as per the principal Act (1996 Act),  the consumer will be forced to incur huge expenses. In the present case, the complainant is claiming refund of Rs.76,56,145/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation costs, aggregate value whereof, if added may be near about Rs.1 crore. In that event, the complainant will be forced to pay an amount of Rs.1,68,750/-  towards his share of Arbitrator’s fees. Not only as above, it is admissible to an Arbitrator, to decide a dispute within one year. Thereafter, the Court wherever it is challenged may also take upto one year and then there is likelihood that the matter will go to the High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Such an effort will be a time consuming and costly one. Taking note of fee component and time consumed in arbitration, it can safely be said that if the matter is referred to an Arbitrator, as prayed, in the present case, it will defeat the very purpose of the provisions of 1986 Act..........................in view of the above, the argument raised by Counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2, that in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint, being devoid of merit, is rejected."........parts of Judgement given by The President of State Commision"

In NCDRC (after above order):

"The Arbitration Clauses are generally contained in the Buyers Agreement between the builders and the purchasers of the plot and flats.  They also find incorporation in the insurance policies and several other agreements which later on become the subject matter of the consumer disputes.  Therefore, the decision of this Commission on these applications is likely to impact a large number of consumer disputes. Considering the vital importance and the far reaching consequence of the legal issue involved in these applications, it would only be appropriate that these applications are considered          and decided by a Larger Bench, consisting of atleast Three-Members.  The Hon’ble President is therefore, requested to constitute a Larger Bench to hear and decide these applications.  Subject to the order of the Hon’ble President, list these applications before the Larger Bench, at an early date, for hearing." ( matter still pending)

Same companies whose application to refer matter to arbitration were rejected in state commision, requested the same matter in NCDRC in other cases.

Thanks for posting this godd piece of information.

Pls post the title and link of these judgments

@ Kumar Doab, please find the case details & link ( link might not open the relevant page) & subject matter is also related with larger interest.

State Commission (CHANDIGARH) : Mr. Prabhujeev Singh Bajaj V/S Emaar MGF Land Ltd (CC/43/2016) Link: https://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetPdfCaseStaus.do?method=GetPdfCaseStaus&cid=6/0/CC/43/2016&dtOfHearing=2016-06-29

NCDRC: Aftab Singh V/S Emaar MGF Land Ltd ( CC/701/2015) please check order dtd.31/08/2016 link : not getting

Same thing happened in the cases against DLF, request rejected by State Commission Chandigarh & in NCDRC matter has been forwarded to larger bench.

The Daily Order dtd.31/08/2016 is not posted.

Proceedings:

IA/247/2016, IA/3976/2016, IA/1079/2016, IA/3324/2016, IA/3709/2016, IA/4447 to 4457/2016, IA/5294 to 5297/2016, IA/5731 to 5733/2016, IA/5944/2016, IA/5946/2016, IA/6033/2016, IA/6479/2016 & IA/6481/2016

Arguments heard at length.

The order is reserved.

Click 'proceedings' in place of "order' of 31.08.2016, you have posted of 01.08.2016 

OK. I shall be doing it.