Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                   The case     of the complainant, in nutshell  is that  complainant has availed finance from the Ashok Leyland Finance  Company through the OP-Bank and  has hypothecated   the vehicle  in favour of the said finance company. But the OP-Bank without any consultation  with the complainant has repossessed the vehicle and inspite of request of the complainant the vehicle was not released. The complainant paid all the amounts as on 13.03.2009 and  however the matter was disposed of on 23.03.2009. Complainant alleged that against that order the OP preferred appeal and said appeal was pending before the State Commission   vide F.A. No.375/2009.  While the matter  stood like thus, the OP No.1 has referred   the matter to Arbitration   headed by one Sri Ram Pravesh Singh on 13.07.2009 and submitted to set-aside  same by allowing the appeal. So, the complaint was filed against the above action of OP No.1 as deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint.

4.            The  OP  No.1  filed written version stating that  this  appeal No.F.A.375/2009 is pending and the arbitration clause is essentially in Civil nature.  It is stated that learned District Forum lacks jurisdiction to interfere in another judicial proceedings stated under Arbitration & Conciliation Act.    Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on the part of  the OP.   

5.                       After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum   passed the following order:-

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                              “The petition of the complainant is allowed on contest against OP No.1 and exparte against  OP No.2. The interim order restraining the OP No.1 & 2  not to enter into any reference until further orders on 29.08.2009 is made final. The OP No.1  is directed to recall the reference   of arbitration from OP No.2 and the OP No.2 is directed to return the reference without making any award.

          In the circumstances, there will be no order for the costs or compensation.”

6.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that  the impugned order  is illegal and improper for  the simple  reason that learned District Forum failed to understand the fact and law involved in this case because the arbitration award has not been placed before the Court. He also submitted that there is no legal bar  for directing the complainant to refer the matter to the arbitration. He submitted that the proceeding under the Arbitration and  Conciliation Act and the Consumer Protection Act  are separate acts governed  by separate law. Since, the agreement is made for reference for arbitration under the Arbitration and  Conciliation Act by passing the impugned order directing the complainant to join Arbitration clause   by the District Forum is bad.  Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.                      Considered the submission  of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.       

8.                 It is admitted fact that on the pleadings that the complainant has incurred loan from the OP No.1.  It is admitted fact that the complainant has availed loan of Rs.12,14,836/-. It is also admitted fact that as on 13.03.2009 when the vehicle was repossessed there was balance of Rs.62,853/- in the account of the complainant. It is admitted fact that the arbitration proceeding was started  at the instance of the present appellant. The only question arises in this case whether the impugned order is legal and proper.

9.            It is settled in law that the contents of the agreement  are binding on the parties. In the instant case there is arbitration clause stating that parties may go for arbitration. When there is such  the contents of the agreement, same is binding on both the parties. But the duty of the Consumer Forum perse is not entitled  to direct one customer of the bank to go for arbitration.  Learned District Forum ought to have considered that whether both the parties appeared before the learned Arbitrator. It is settled in law   that they can file the case under Arbitration & Conciliation Act and at the same time Consumer  complaint can be also filed because the pich  and substance  asked for under the respective Act is distinct from each other. Apart from this direction to make journey to reference is not mandatory to the issue. But it is the party to decide whether he will go for arbitration. Section-40 of the Act never directs  a party to go for arbitration. Learned District Forum by passing the impugned order has tried to rewrite the contract which is not permissible under the law.

10.           In view of above discussion,  we do not agree with the finding of the learned District Forum and as such appeal stands allowed. No cost.

                   Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

                     DFR be sent back forthwith.