Consumer Protection Forums operate as judicial authorities, thus arbitration agreements do not automatically impede their jurisdiction.

1Leave granted.

2We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

3This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated November 13, 1902 of the National Consumer Disputes redressal Commission, New Delhi (the "Commission", for short) passed in First Appeal No. 62/1991.

4The admitted facts are that the appellant had entered into a contract with the respondent to carry out installation of a centrally air-conditioned plant in the residential house of the respondent in New Delhi. Since he has committed breach of the contract, seeking to recover a sum of Rs. 3,75,000/- as compensation for alleged deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in carrying out the work of installation of the centrally air-conditioned plant, the respondent laid the complaint before the State Commission which in its order dated October 30, 1990 had stayed the proceedings and relegated the parties to arbitration for seeking the remedy. The appellant carried the matter in appeal. By the impugned order the Commission has held that the proceedings before the forums created under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) (for short the "Act") is not a legal proceedings nor is the Commission a judicial authority; therefore, S.34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is not available to stay the proceedings. Thus this appeal by special leave.

5Shri R. S. Suri, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the scheme of the Act, in particular S.3, 10, 16 and 20 provides for constitution of District Forum, State Commission and National Commission which conduct proceedings as per the procedure prescribed is S.13; finality is attached to the order of the forums under S.24. The orders are enforceable at law by operation of S.25 and the penalties for contravention get sanctions under S.27. The hierarchy of appeals provided under S.19 et al does indicate that the proceedings before the authorities under the Act are legal proceedings and the authorities are judicial authorities within the meaning of S.34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 . The Commission, therefore, was in error in its conclusion that proceedings before the authorities are not legal proceedings nor is the Tribunal a judicial authority. Ms. Binu Tamta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that there is no consensus ad idem between the parties on the point of reference to an arbitration; pursuant to a quotation given by the appellant, the respondent agreed only on the conditions enumerated and communicated by the respondent to which the appellant had agreed thereunder. No arbitration clause emerged by consensus ad idem. Therefore, there is no arbitration agreement for reference of the dispute for arbitration. It is also contended that the respondent, after issuance of the notice by the State Commission, had appeared and taken five adjournments to the counter; thereby, it has acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the State Commission. Thereby, the appellant, having participated in the proceedings before the State Commission, is not entitled to avail of the remedy of stay of further proceedings under S.34, pending reference to an arbitration. It is also contended that the Tribunals constituted under the Act are Special Tribunals. Though they are invested with the powers of the Civil Court in a limited way it is not conferred with trappings of the Court. Therefore, it is neither legal proceedings nor is the Tribunal a judicial authority under S.34. Thereby, the remedy of S.34 is not available to the appellant. It is further contended that the Act being a special statute having given exclusive jurisdiction to the forums created under the Act to provide inexpensive and expeditious remedy. Relegating the parties to the arbitration defeats the purpose of the remedy through summary trial which is provided under the Act. Therefore, the Court would be slow the relegate the parties to the process of arbitration under the Arbitration Act.

6Having regard to the respective contentions, the first