Case Reference :
Civil Appeal No.2500 of 1994 with Nos.4029 of 1994, 2339, 4049 of 1996 and 171 of 1997, decided on May, 12, 2000.

Judges :
Justice G.B.Pattanaik, Justice Doraiswamy Raju. and Justice S.N.Variava.

Parties :
Civil Appeal No.2500 of 1994:
Skypak Couriers Ltd. (Appellant)Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd.
(Respondent).
Civil Appeal No.4029 of 1994:
Skypak Couriers Ltd. (Appellant)Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd.
(Respondent).
Civil Appeal No.2339 of 1996:
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. (Appellant) Vs.Reliable Products
(Respondent).
Civil Appeal No.4049 of 1996:
Kalaiman Chemicals (P)Ltd. (Appellant) Vs.United India Insurance
Co.Ltd. and others (Respondents).
Civil Appeal No.171 of 1997:
National Insurance Co.Ltd.and others (Appellants) Vs.Premier
Plantations Ltd.(Respondent).

Question of Law :

Gist of the Case:

The Supreme Court found fault with the procedure followed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the Commission”) in referring a complaint received by a consumer to a third party for consensual adjudication. The learned Judges stated that they did not find any provision in the Consumer Protection Act which authorises the Commission to refer a pending proceeding before it to a third party for consensual adjudication and later make the decision of the so-called consensual arbitrator, an order of the Commission itself. Even if there exists an arbitration clause in an agreement and a complaint is made by the consumer, in relation to a certain deficiency of service, then the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar to the entertainment of the complaint by the Redressal Agency constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
The Supreme Court also stated that it is an unhealthy practice for courts/commission/tribunal to abdicate their duties and functions and to delegate adjudication of disputes before them to third parties. The Commission was directed to forthwith discontinue with such a practice. The Commission did not consider objections to the award or did not allow the parties to file objections. The Supreme Court set aside the final orders of the Commission in all these matters and remitted them back to the Commission with the direction that the Commission shall permit the parties, who have not filed their objections, to file their objections to the award within a period of 4 weeks from the date of this order. Replies, if any, to the objections to be filed within 4 weeks thereafter. The Commission shall then consider the submissions/objections of respective parties and then give a decision.

Citation :
(2000) 5 SCC 294