The order passed under the Consumer Protection Act is final, and an arbitrator cannot sit over the order passed by the Consumer Forum and State Consumer Redressal Commission.

( 1 ) THE question for consideration in the instant writ petition is whether after availing the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and having obtained an order in his favour granting compensation, petitioner can have recourse to proceeding for arbitration as per arbitration clause in agreement, being dissatisfied with the amount granted by the District Consumer Forum.

( 2 ) PETITIONER owns Mahendra Jeep 1995 model which is insured with the respondent/united Insurance Company Ltd. ; claim was lodged by the petitioner with respect to the damage caused to the Jeep in an accident on 4-1-99, the surveyor assessed the net loss of Rs. 12,060/-; petitioner claimed the damage to the extent of Rs. 67,764/ -. Complaint was filed before the District Consumer Forum which was resisted by the Insurance Company; the District Forum after considering the material on record and the fact that the chassis was not in a good condition which was the cause of the accident, hence the District Forum ordered to pay the labour charge of replacement of chassis of Rs. 12,060/- and cost of new chassis of Rs. 28,440/-, in all Rs. 40,500/- with interest on the amount of Rs. 28,440/- at the rate of 12% p. a. from 18-5-99 and Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the proceedings.

( 3 ) AN objection was raised by the Insurance Company that appropriate remedy for the complaint is to raise the dispute for adjudication of the Arbitrator in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. However, the Insurance Company deposited the amount as ordered by the District Consumer Forum. On reappraisal of evidence, the M. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has come to the conclusion as per Order P/8 dated 19-4-2001 that the order passed by the District Forum does not call for any interference nor the enhancement of the amount is required. The direction was issued to deposit the interest as ordered by the District Forum.

( 4 ) AFTER decision of appeal by State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, petitioner filed a suit for appointment of arbitrator to claim further amount. The learned XIth Addl. District Judge, Jabalpur as per order P/14 dated 2-5-2002 held that the application is not maintainable as the petitioner has availed the remedy under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and compensation has been awarded by the District Forum/state Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioner submits that as the objection was raised by the insurer before the District Forum and State Forum opposing the claim that petitioner has to raise the dispute for adjudication of the Arbitrator in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy or to institute a civil suit, the impugned order (P/14) passed by learned Addl. District Judge is bad in law. Even otherwise the remedy of arbitration is available in spite of the fact that petitioner has availed the benefit of Consumer Protection Act and award has been passed.

( 6 ) SHRI S. K. Rao, learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. N. K. Modi, AIR 1997 SC 533 to contend that now arbitrator cannot be appointed; once decision is rendered under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

( 7 ) THE only question for consideration is whether after decision of dispute on merits under Consumer Protection Act and obtaining an award in favour, it is open to petitioner to fall back on arbitration clause and claim additional amount. In M/s. Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. N. K. Modi (supra) the Apex Court held that the Consumer Protection Act provides an additional forum though the remedy of Arbitration Act is initially available. In order to relieve the consumers of the cumbersome arbitration proceedings or civil action, the Act has been enacted and the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate on merit of claim in spite of availability of arbitration proceedings. The Apex Court held that matter need not be