PRASENJIT MANDAL, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the order dated March 6, 2013 passed by the Hon 'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in S.C. Case No. RP/33/2013 thereby declining to admit the Revisional Application challenging the order dated February 25, 2013 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas in Case No.85 of 2011 thereby rejecting the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
(2.) PURSUANT to the Development Agreement dated October 2, 2009 certain constructions had been done and the intending purchasers had been put in possession of the respective flats. But, the opposite parties filed a complaint case before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Alipore (henceforth shall be called as 'District Forum ') ignoring the provisions of the agreement to the effect that the settlement of the disputes if any, will be decided by the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner entered an appearance in the said complaint case before the District Forum and he contested the case. At the stage of hearing argument over the case, he filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and that application was rejected by an earlier order against which the petitioner moved this Hon 'ble Court, being the C.O. No.276 of 2013, which was disposed of by an order dated January 29, 2013 by this Hon 'ble Court holding that there were no ingredients which were required to be incorporated in an application under Section 8 of the 1996 Act and as such liberty was given to the petitioner to file a fresh application. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a fresh application under Section 8 of the 1996 Act and the said application was rejected by the learned District Forum by an order dated February 25, 2013. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision being S.C. Case No. RP/33/2013 and the said application was not admitted by the impugned order. Accordingly, this application has been preferred.
(3.) NOW , the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I am of the view that Hon 'ble State Commission has rightly dismissed the application being not admitted. The petitioner has contended that in view of the Paragraph No.33 of the agreement dated October 2, 2009, between the parties, any dispute arising out of the agreement would be referred to arbitration for settlement. There is no dispute in this regard, but, the fact remains that as per observation of the District Forum, the matter in dispute has already been referred to for arbitration and, in fact, an arbitrator had already been appointed under Section 11 of the 1996 Act. So, when an arbitrator had already been appointed in the matter, no question of referring the dispute to arbitration arises at all. Above all, as per Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, the provision of the Act of 1996 shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.;