H.L.DATTU v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. {2000 (5) SCC 294}. In the aforesaiddecision
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) Nos.28890 of 2008, 34237 of 200834238 of 2008, 34239 of 200834254 of 2008, 34255 of 2008 34409 of 2008, 34519 of 2008 &34547 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------Dated, this the 11th day of December, 2008JUDGMENTH.L.Dattu, C.J.Since the legal issue involved in all these writ petitions areidentical, these petitions are clubbed together, heard and disposed of bythis common order.2. Petitioner in these writ petitions is a financial institution. It had extended facility to the respondents for purchase of vehicle underthe Loan Cum Hypothecation Agreement.3. Alleging that, the petitioner herein has defaulted inhanding over the original documents of the vehicle as stated in theagreement, respondents herein have approached the District ConsumerDisputes Redressal Forum. 4. In the complaint filed, the respondents have furtheralleged that, in the absence of the original documents of the vehicle, theyare not in a position to make use of the vehicle for their business purpose W.P.C. No.
28890 of 2008 & con.cases -2-and therefore there is deficiency in service.5. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, afterentertaining the complaint filed by the respondents has issued notices tothe petitioner/financial institution. 6. After service of notice and after entering appearance, the petitioner herein has filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, inter alia requesting the DistrictConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator, in view of a clause in the agreement itself between the parties.7. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has rejectedthe request of the petitioner/financial institution by relying upon theobservations made by the Apex Court in the case of {Skypak CouriersLtd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. {2000 (5) SCC 294}. In the aforesaiddecision, the Apex Court has stated as under: “........Even if there exists an arbitration clause in anagreement and a complaint is made by the consumer, inrelation to a certain deficiency of service, then the existenceof an arbitration clause will not be a bar to the entertainmentof the complaint by the Redressal Agency, constituted underthe Consumer Protection Act, since the remedy providedunder the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law W.P.C. No.
28890 of 2008 & con.cases -3-for the time being in force.” 8. In the instant case, the petition filed by thepetitioner/financial institution was that, since there is an arbitrationclause in the agreement, the complainant has to agitate the matter beforethe Arbitrator. Therefore, a request was made by the financial institutionbefore the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to refer the matter to the Arbitrator for adjudication and decision. The request so made is rejectedby the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.9. In our view, in view of the law declared by the ApexCourt in Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. {2000 (5) SCC294}, we cannot take exception to the orders passed by the DistrictConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, since it has faithfully followed thedicta laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision. In that viewof the matter, we decline to entertain these writ petitions.
Accordingly, these writ petitions are rejected. 10. In these writ petitions, we need not have to decidewhether a writ petition is maintainable or not before this Court againstthe order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ,when a petition is filed under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is rejected or allowed by the District Consumer W.P.C. No. 28890 of 2008 & con.cases -4-Forum, since we are disposing of these writ petitions following theobservations made by the Apex Court in the case of Skypak CouriersLtd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. {2000 (5) SCC 294}. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS/dk
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 8; Consumer Protection Act, 2019; Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996 — s. 8.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 11 Dec 2008. The bench was A K BASHEER.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.