IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21980 of 2008(N) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO; LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS LTD), HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 123, ANGAPPA NAICKEN STREET, CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI. VENUGOPALAN P.T., LEGAL CONSULTANT,M/S SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO; LTD., SREEPADAM BUILDING, CHEROOTY ROAD, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR RESPONDENT: ------------------ M.K. NOUFAL, S/O. P. MOHAMMED KUNHI, HUDHA MANZIL, BENDICHAL, P.O. THEKKIL, VIA CHENGALA, KASARAGOD. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.21980 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This matter relates to proceedings before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod in C.C.No.11/06. The respondent filed the C.C. complaining of deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner raised a contention that since there is an arbitration clause in the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent, the Forum does not have jurisdiction and the parties should be relegated to the arbitration proceedings. 2. The petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application seeking relief under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The same was rejected by Ext.P3 order relying on the Supreme Court decision in Skypak Couriers V. Tata Chemicals Ltd. [2000(5) SCC 294]. Thereafter, the Forum passed final order in that C.C., which is Ext.P4. The petitioner challenges Exts.P3 and P4 orders in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, in view of the arbitration clause, the Forum W.P.(c)No.21980/08 2 could not have considered the matter on merits but instead should have relegated the parties to the arbitration proceedings. I am not inclined to consider the matter on merits in so far as the petitioner's remedy lies in filing an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the orders before the Commission, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.21980/08 3