Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed review petitions challenging refusal to refer a homebuyer’s consumer complaint to arbitration. The 2015 amendment to section 8 narrowed judicial intervention but did not override additional or special statutory remedies, including the consumer remedy chosen here. The Court clarified that arbitration remained available where an entitled person did not opt for the additional statutory remedy.
Issues
- Whether the amended section 8 compelled referral of a consumer complaint despite the consumer’s election of the statutory remedy.
- Whether the earlier dismissal of the builder’s appeals warranted review.
Provisions considered
- Section 8(1), as amended by Act 3 of 2016, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996The non-obstante reference to prior judgments narrowed intervention concerning arbitration agreements, but did not eliminate special or additional remedies under other enactments. (¶¶ 28, 29, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52)
- Section 2(3), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Part I preserved other laws by virtue of which disputes could not be submitted to arbitration, informing the limited reach of the amendment. (¶¶ 30, 31, 50)
- Section 3, Consumer Protection Act, 1986The consumer remedy was additional and its availability was not displaced by an arbitration clause or the section 8 amendment. (¶¶ 16, 20, 25, 27, 51, 55, 56)
Held
- The settled consumer-law authorities permitted a complaint notwithstanding an arbitration agreement, reflecting the additional, beneficial statutory redress mechanism. (¶¶ 16, 18, 20, 23, 24, 25, 27)
- The amendment’s purpose was to restrict judicial intervention concerning reference to arbitration. Its language and legislative history did not show an intention to extinguish special or additional remedies or overturn the relevant non-arbitrability principles. (¶¶ 36, 37, 39, 40, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52)
- Where a person entitled to an additional special statutory remedy did not choose it and was party to an arbitration agreement, arbitration was not inhibited. The protection concerned a special remedy actually opted for by the aggrieved person. (¶ 55)
- The NCDRC correctly rejected the builder’s section 8 application in the consumer proceedings. No error justifying review of the dismissal of the appeals was established. (¶ 56)
Result
Review petitions dismissed; refusal to refer the consumer complaint to arbitration and the earlier dismissal of the builder’s appeals left undisturbed.