Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 06.12.2022 is wrong and illegal because the learned District Commission hasnot distinguished between both the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Consumer Protection Act, 2019.According to him once  the Commission has  passed order,  it is for the O.P  to  carry out the same although there is  provision for the Arbitration  and Conciliation Act as per the agreement between the parties. Learned District Commission committed error in law by not distinguishing both the Act. So he submitted to set aside the impugned order.

3.      At the stage of admission, we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order.We are  inclined to interfere with it because the impugned order has been passed purportedly under the Consumer Protection Act but passing to implement  order of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On thorough scrutiny of the impugned order, it appears that at first the impugned order has passed on 06.06.2022 not to seize the vehicle  and thereafter the O.P moved under the Arbitration  Conciliation Act,1996. It is settled in law by catena of decisions that the proceedings in both the Act can runbut if theArbitration order has already been passed under the Arbitration  and Conciliation Act finally,thereafter the consumer complaint is not maintainable. It is also settled in law that both the authorities    are independent in their respective fields to pass the order. In the  instant case as discussed above at first the consumer complaint was field and impugned order was passed. Subsequently the O.P filed the case under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and got the order to release the vehicle.Once the  interim order was passed on 6.6.2022  directing the OP not to seize the vehicle till filing of written version under the C.P.Act. But  before such order is  made absolute or disposed of, but  subsequently rejected the interim application by reviewing its own order. Since there is no apparent error on record, the rejection of the interim application by vacating his own order is abuse of jurisdiction  entrusted upon the learned District Commisison. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the impugned order passed by the learned District Commission on 6.6.2022 not to seize the vehicle is restored. Learned District Commission is directed to hear both the parties afresh and pass well reasoned order within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.The petitioner is directed to  produce the copy of this order and appear before the learned District Commission on 06.01.2023 to receive further instruction from it

          Revision is disposed of accordingly.

        Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.