Consumer forum jurisdiction survives arbitration clause where complaint is already filed, and reference to arbitration is not mandatory.

The availability of an arbitration clause does not exclude a consumer forum's jurisdiction where a consumer complaint has already been filed before the competent forum. The remedy under consumer protection law is additional to other remedies, and Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not compel a consumer forum to refer an existing consumer dispute to arbitration. The consumer forum therefore retains jurisdiction despite the arbitration agreement, and the application seeking reference to an arbitral tribunal does not oust that forum's power to entertain the complaint.

---

---

Issues: Whether the existence of an arbitration clause and an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 barred the consumer forum from entertaining the complaint and required a reference to arbitration.

Analysis: The remedy under the consumer protection law is in addition to other remedies and is not taken away by the availability of arbitration. The Court relied on earlier authority holding that Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not compel a consumer forum to refer a consumer dispute to arbitration when the complaint has already been instituted before the competent forum. The consumer forum retains jurisdiction notwithstanding the arbitration clause.

Conclusion: The application for reference to arbitration did not oust the consumer forum's jurisdiction, and the consumer forum was not bound to refer the dispute to an arbitral tribunal.

---