This case record is taken up for consideration for passing order in respect of the petition filed by the applicants of this case who are the ops of C.C. case no. 206 of 2022 for dismissing this complaint case no. 206 of 2022 as there is arbitration clause in the memorandum of agreement in respect of purchase of a flat on ownership basis.

This prayer has been opposed by the ops of this M.A. case who are the complainants of C.C. case no. 206 of 2022.

Ld. Advocates of both sides have highlighted their arguments. Considered submissions highlighted by the ld. Advocates of both sides.

It is the main point of contention and argument of the applicant side of this M.A. case that in the memorandum of argument for purchase of a flat on ownership basis dt. 25.6.2019 which has been made as annexure “A” there is a clause of referring dispute to the arbitrator at paragraph no. 26 in page 10 of the said agreement and for that reason it is the duty of this District Commission to refer the dispute of C.C. case no. 206 of 2022 to the arbitrator by complying the provisions of Sec. 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. For all these reasons the applicant side of this M.A. case has prayed before this District Commission for dismissing this C.C. case no. 206 of 2022.

On the other hand it is the main point of contention and argument of the ops of this M.A. case that this case is maintainable and this District Commission has the jurisdiction to try and dispose of the C.C. case no. 206 of 2022. It is pointed out that the arbitration clause which is prevailing in the memorandum of agreement for purchase of a flat on ownership basis dt. 25.6.2019 shall not be a bar in the matter of conducting trial of C.C. case no. 206 of 2022 and disposal of the said case.

Now the question is as to whether the arbitration clause which is described in para 26 of page 10 of the memorandum of agreement for purchase of a flat on ownership basis dt. 25.6.2019 shall stand as a bar in the matter of trial and disposal of C.C. case no. 206 of 2022 or not?

In the answer it can be said that it is the settled principle of law that the arbitration clause in the agreement does not bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum/ District Commission to entertain the complaint. This legal principle has been observed by Hon’ble Apex Court and it has been observed in the case of Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. Ajay Kumar Agarwal and it is reported in 2022(4) Indian Civil Cases 301 (S.C.). Similar legal views has been observed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and it is reported in 2022(2) CPR 50(NC).

This legal principle is clearly depicting that the above noted point of contention and argument of the applicants of this M.A. case has no leg to stand upon and so it cannot be accepted.

In the result, it is accordingly,

ordered

that this M.A. case no. 85 of 2022 be and the same is dismissed on contest.

The C.C. case no. 206 of 2022 is found maintainable in the eye of law and this District Commission has also its jurisdiction in the matter of trying this case.

No order is passed as to costs.

Let the case record of M.A. case no. 85 of 2022 be tagged with the case record of C.C. case no. 206 of 2022.