Case Title: Govind Narain Gupta Vs. Sudhakar Nath
Case Number: F.A. No. 612/2021
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, under the leadership of Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, has recently emphasised that the Consumer Protection Act is not an isolated legislation but works in conjunction with other laws, offering additional legal remedies for consumers.
In the case at hand, the complainant had purchased land and entered into an agreement with the respondent. The respondent was to construct a residential complex on the plot using his own funds, with the promise of owning half of each floor. However, when the construction was not completed within the agreed timeframe, a civil lawsuit was initiated by the complainant. The respondent invoked an arbitration clause, which led to the dismissal of the suit. Despite this, the complainant proceeded to file a complaint with the State Commission, which was also dismissed on the grounds of the previously pending civil case.
The respondent did not participate in the proceedings, and the case was heard ex parte.
The National Commission carefully reviewed the case and found that the State Commission had incorrectly dismissed the complaint. The State Commission had wrongly assumed that the existence of a pending civil case made the consumer complaint inadmissible. However, the National Commission pointed to Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, which allows for the Act’s remedies to supplement those provided by other laws.
The Commission also referred to a Supreme Court verdict (M/s Imperia Structures Ltd. Vs. Anil Patni & Anr. 2020), which similarly upheld the right of consumers to seek remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, even when other legal avenues are available.
The Commission further noted that an arbitration clause in an agreement does not prevent a consumer from seeking redress under the Consumer Protection Act, as the remedies available under the Act are supplementary to other legal recourse.
In light of these observations, the National Commission overturned the State Commission’s dismissal and allowed the appeal.
The takeaway from this case is that the Consumer Protection Act is not an isolated law but works alongside other legislation to provide consumers with multiple avenues for seeking justice. It clarifies that the existence of an arbitration clause or a pending civil suit does not negate the rights of a consumer to seek redress under the Consumer Protection Act.
