Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This is an Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by which the decision of Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-II (Central) dated 02-06-2015, passed in CC/597/2014, has been challenged by M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.

The short case of the Appellants is that, before initiation of the instant complaint case, they referred the matter before an Arbitrator and in turn, the Ld. Arbitrator issued notice upon the Respondent directing him to enter appearance and submit counter statement on 17-12-2014 and the said arbitration proceedings is still pending.  Thus, the Appellant contended that the proceedings initiated before the Ld. District Forum was bad in law.

We have heard the arguments of both sides and gone through the documents on record.

Undisputedly, the Appellants initiated arbitration proceedings before filing of the consumer case before the Ld. District Forum and admittedly, the Respondent was well aware of such development as due notice was already served upon him.

It is the settled position of law that two simultaneous proceedings on the self same subject cannot run before two competent Forums. 

In M/S. Magma Fincorp Ltd Vs Gulzar Ali, RP 3835 of 2013 decided on 17.04.2015, the Hon’ble National  Commission held as follows:-

"It is well settled that terms and conditions of the agreement to this effect do not bar jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora but when the parties opt to proceed, first of all, before the Arbitrator, in that event, the jurisdiction of this Commission stand barred".

Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Commission in Beverly Park Maintenance Services Ltd Vs Kashmir Fab Styles Pvt. Ltd., II (2014) CPJ 109 (NC); T. Srinivas & Anr Vs Srija Constructions, I (2016) CPJ 552 (NC) and Vishnu Chandra Sharma Vs Sriram finance company ltd. & Anr, III (2017) CPJ 211 (NC).

In view of this, it is amply clear that the impugned order is not at all sustainable in law. 

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed on contest against the Respondent.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.