SANJAY CHAMORIA vs MINATI GHOSH

-THIS is a Revision Petition filed by the petitioner against Order No. 14 dated 28. 8. 2007 passed by the learned District Forum, Paschim Medinipur in D. F. Case No. 79/2006 rejecting the contention of the OP/revisional Petitioner that since there is a provision in the agreement for resolving the dispute through arbitration, the Consumer Forum does not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter. Being aggrieved by the said order the present Revision Petition has been filed.

IN the present case, the OP had purchased a Maruti Zen Motor Car from the Revisional Petitioners under hire purchase scheme. The Petitioners allegedly seized the vehicle of the OP after payment of 30 instalments out of 53 instalments. Being aggrieved by such alleged arbitrary action on the part of the petitioners the OP filed a complaint before the Forum below. The Petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the learned District Forum on the ground that as per agreement entered into with the complainant/op, all disputes should be referred to the arbitrator and hence the Consumer Forum does not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter. In fact, the petitioners had subsequently filed an arbitration complaint with the arbitrator against the Complainant/op after the complaint was filed before the Forum and adjudication process had made substantial progress. The complaint was heard by the arbitrator ex parte as the Complainant/op did not appear before the learned Arbitrator on the ground that she had already filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum and same is under adjudication. The question of maintainability was heard by the learned Forum when both the sides made their submissions at length. After hearing both of them the learned Forum passed the above order and, hence, this Revision Petition. We have perused the Revision Petition and the order passed by the learned Forum. It was submitted by the OP before the Forum that the Revisional Petitioners/ops had filed a petition before the learned Arbitrator in the City Civil Court suppressing the fact that a complaint had already been filed against them before the Consumer Forum and the adjudication of the said complaint was in progress. It is evident from the record that the Complainant had filed a complaint on 21. 9. 2006, whereas the proceeding before the learned City Civil Court was initiated in the year 2007.

From the submissions made by both the sides and the documents placed before us we find that the Complainant/op had filed a complaint against the Revisional Petitioners being aggrieved on the ground that though she was making regular payment of instalments, the Revisional Petitioners/ops had failed to supply the copy of the agreement and necessary statement of accounts showing the payments made by her and the outstanding balance of hire purchase loan. However, we do not like to enter into the merit of the case and want to concentrate on the Revision Petition filed by the Petitioners. We agree with the observation of the learned Forum below that though there is a provision in the agreement for resolving the disputes through arbitration proceeding, the Consumer Forum has full jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter if a complaint is filed before it since Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that such relief to a Consumer is in addition to and not in derogation of other Acts. Accordingly, the complaint was admitted and hearing was in progress. Hence, in this context we are inclined to refer to The OP had relied on the decision in Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. N. K. Modi, III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC)=air 1997 SC 533, wherein it has been clearly observed by the Hon''ble Apex Court that the Consumer Forums have full jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter relating to arbitration. In the present case, we find that the petitioners have filed an arbitration complaint before the learned Arbitrator in the City Civil Court being Case No. 7065/07 on 28. 4. 2007 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 while the proceedings were going on before the Forum below. The complaint was filed by the OP/complainant before the learned Forum on 21. 9. 2006. Thus the Arbitration Case was filed with the learned Arbitrator about 8 months after the complaint was filed. But most surprisingly they had suppressed the fact of the ongoing proceedings pending before the learned Forum and thus obtained an ex parte order from the learned Arbitrator by way of misrepresentation. Any way, it is for the competent authority to see how far the order is valid or not. We are of the view that the order of the learned Forum dated 28. 8. 2007 is a reasoned order and does not call for any interference by us. The Forum below has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter. The petition be accordingly disposed of and the Petitioners/ops are directed to contest the case before the Forum below. The Revision Petition thus stands rejected. A copy of this order be sent to the Forum below for their information. Revision Petition dismissed.