SANJAY CHAMORIA Vs. MINATI GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.