IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 647 OF 2008 M/S. ASIAN CONSTRUCTIONS THROUGH PARTNER JAMMIE JOSE MARIA ADOLFO DIAS ... Petitioner Versus MS. JENNIFER B. PACKHAM ... Respondent Mr. A. R. Kantak,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Bras De Sa,Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 21st January, 2009 P.C. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the opposite party whose application for staying the proceedings before the Consumer forum, was rejected by the State Consumer Forum. The main grounds upon which the opposite party i.e. the present petitioner had sought staying of the proceedings before the Forum, were two. The first ground is that the complainant was no more a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act since the agreement had come to an end. The second ground was that there was existing arbitration agreement between the parties and in order to avoid there being any conflict of decision, it was necessary to stay the proceedings before the Consumer Forum. 2. The Consumer Forum found that there was no need to stay the proceedings and relying on the decision of the Supreme Court, it held that both the proceedings could go on at a time. The application was, therefore, rejected and the opposite party feels aggrieved by that order of Forum. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/ opposite party, states before me that the Consumer Forum cannot grant a relief in favour of the complainant at all in view of the fact that the agreement has come to an end. He submits that the agreement has been terminated since the complainant had not paid the consideration which she was required to pay under the agreement. He submits that since the agreement has been terminated, the complainant is no more the consumer within the meaning of the Act. The submission has to be rejected to be stated. The reason is that the consumer has necessarily come before the Court to enforce the agreement. Enforcement of the agreement in any case, could be said to be enforcing the right under the agreement. Such a person is a consumer. The statement, therefore, has no force. 4. The next argument that was raised is that there is an agreement subsisting between the parties to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator. There may be existing arbitration agreement. It may be mentioned here that the Consumer Forum has considered this aspect and has found that the opposite party had entered into defence and not only filed one written statement but had filed two. It found that since the opposite party had entered into defence and had filed written statement, there was no question of keeping the hands off the complaint before the Consumer Forum. It is not disputed that the opposite party had entered into defence and had filed written statement. It was, therefore, not necessary for the Consumer Forum to keep it at hands off under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Further, the Supreme Court, in the case of Skypak Couriers V/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. reported in 2000(5) SCC 294, has clearly laid down the proposition that even if there exists an arbitration clause in an agreement and a complaint is made to consumer in relation to a certain deficiency in service, then the existence of an arbitration clause would be no bar to entertain the complaint by Redressal Forum. In view of what has been observed by the Supreme Court, I do not find that the order passed by the Consumer Forum, suffers from any infirmity. The petition is, therefore, rejected in limine. All interim orders passed by this Court, stand vacated. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. SMA