ORDER
A.K. Mishra, J.
1. In this writ petition, petitioners have assailed order dated 16-12-2003 (P-4) passed by learned District Judge, Jabalpur, in M.J.C. No. 116/2003. Petitioner M/s. Rukmani Solvex (P) Ltd., has filed an application for appointment of an arbitrator. The very maintainability of the application filed by the respondent was assailed by the United India Insurance Co. on the ground that the matter has been adjudicated by M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal, hence, the application is not maintainable under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The application was filed relying on a decision in Basant Kumar Dubey v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003 (2) MPLJ page 257 and M/s. Fair Air Engineering (P) Ltd. v. N.K. Modi, AIR 1997 SC 533. The learned District Judge has disallowed the application and has asked the Insurer to file reply to the main application on merits.
2. Shri Varun Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that once matter was adjudicated by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal, no application lies under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as *the Act’).
3. Shri P. Asati. learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the order (P-l) passed by M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 23-5-2000 in Original Case No. 21/98 has been passed in terms of the conditions of the policy hence, application is maintainable and can not be dismissed on the ground that respondent has filed a complaint before M.P. State Disputes Redressal Commission.
4. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it is necessary to consider the nature of order passed by M.P. State Redressal Commissioner in O.A. No. 21/98, with respect to same subject-matter, an application has been filed for appointment of an arbitrator. Para 10 of the order reads thus :–
“10. The Insurance Company offered Rs. 3,87,213/” which was not accepted by the complainant. On filing of the complaint, this amount ought to have been deposited which was not deposited for the payment of the complainant. Therefore, we direct the Insurance Company to make the payment of Rs. 3,87,213/- with interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a. within a period of two months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. The complainant shall be at liberty if so advised to institute the civil suit or to get the dispute of quantum adjudicated by arbitration in terms of the conditions of the policy. In case, the complainant files suit, the complainant can claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, while computing the period of limitation prescribed for such a suit.”
5. It is clear from the above quoted portion of order that liberty has been granted to the petitioner to get the quantum adjudicated by the arbitration in terms of the conditions of the policy. The decision which has been relied in Basant Kumar Dubey v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), on facts has different field to operate. The claim was adjudicated on merits under Consumer Protection Act and an award was passed. Hence, it was held it was not open for the claimant to claim further amount by having recourse to arbitration clause in agreement.
6. In Basant Kumar (supra) decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Fair Air Engineering (P) Ltd. v. N.K. Modi (supra) and J.J Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, (2002) 6 SCC 635 was also referred. The Apex Court has held that Consumer Protection Act provides an additional forum though the remedy of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is initially available. It was held that the Consumer Forum can proceed with the matter even if parties have arbitration clause in contract entered between them.
7. In the instant case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, State Consumer Redressal Commission has considered it appropriate that parties may have to approach as to the quantum of compensation before (to) an arbitrator, as provided under the agreement/insurance policy.
8. In my opinion, the view taken by the learned Court below with respect to the maintainability of the application for appointment of arbitrator, is correct. I find no ground to make interference in the order. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs, as incurred.