IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 28890 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS LTD.) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 123, ANGAPPA NAICKEN STREET, CHENNAI, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI.VENUGOPALAN P.T., LEGAL CONSULTANT, M/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD., SREEPADAM BUILDING, CHEROOTY ROAD, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR RESPONDENT: -------------------- THOTTATHIL MOHAMMED, S/O. KUNHEEDU HAJI, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, PARAPPUR AMSOM, IRINGALLUR DESOM, VENGARA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO.34237/2008 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) Nos.28890 of 2008, 34237 of 2008 34238 of 2008, 34239 of 2008 34254 of 2008, 34255 of 2008 34409 of 2008, 34519 of 2008 & 34547 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Since the legal issue involved in all these writ petitions are identical, these petitions are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioner in these writ petitions is a financial institution. It had extended facility to the respondents for purchase of vehicle under the Loan Cum Hypothecation Agreement. 3. Alleging that, the petitioner herein has defaulted in handing over the original documents of the vehicle as stated in the agreement, respondents herein have approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. 4. In the complaint filed, the respondents have further alleged that, in the absence of the original documents of the vehicle, they are 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, after entertaining the complaint filed by the respondents has issued notices to the 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 District Consumer 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 rejected the request of the petitioner/financial institution by relying upon the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of {Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. {2000 (5) SCC 294}. In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court has stated as under: “........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 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 the petitioner/financial institution was that, since there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, the complainant has to agitate the matter before the Arbitrator. Therefore, a request was made by the financial institution before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to refer the matter to the Arbitrator for adjudication and decision. The request so made is rejected by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. 9. In our view, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. {2000 (5) SCC 294}, we cannot take exception to the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, since it has faithfully followed the dicta laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision. In that view of 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 decide whether a writ petition is maintainable or not before this Court against the 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 the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. {2000 (5) SCC 294}. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS/dk