ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 18.06.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 50/2014 title Ami Chand v. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. & Ors . Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Shri Ami Chand filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant for self employment purpose purchase vehicle Tata Sumo Grande LX in consideration amount of Rs. 699641/-(Six lac ninety nine thousand six hundred forty one). It is pleaded that vehicle was registered as taxi No. HP-01M-0892. It is pleaded that vehicle was insured with opposite party No. 5 w.e.f. 01.12.2010 to 30.11.2011 and premium to the tune of Rs. 26987/-(Twenty six thousand nine hundred eighty seven) was also paid. It is further pleaded that vehicle was financed by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and opposite parties No. 1 & 2 without the consent of complainant insured the vehicle with opposite party No. 6 w.e.f. 29.03.2011 to 28.03.2012 and added the amount of Rs. 23633/-(Twenty three thousand six hundred thirty three) in loan account of complainant. It is further pleaded that thereafter opposite parties No. 1 & 2 insured the vehicle with opposite party No. 6 w.e.f. 29.03.2012 to 28.03.2013 in premium amount of Rs. 15569/-(Fifteen thousand five hundred sixty nine) and added the amount in loan account of complainant. It is pleaded that thereafter opposite parties No. 1 & 2 again insured vehicle with opposite party No. 6 w.e.f. 29.03.2013 to 28.03.2014 and paid premium to the tune of Rs. 17906/-(Seventeen thousand nine hundred six) and added the amount in loan account. It is pleaded that sitting capacity was also wrongly shown by opposite parties as 9 + 1 whereas sitting capacity of vehicle was 6 + 1. It is pleaded that complainant has not paid some installments of loan and vehicle was illegally repossessed by opposite parties No. 1 to 3 by way of using muscle power and added an amount of Rs. 1085/-(One thousand eighty five) in the loan amount. It is further pleaded that opposite party No. 3 issued notice of sale auction on dated 15.07.2013 which was dispatched by opposite party No. 2 on 31.07.2013. It is further pleaded that opposite parties without waiting for the period of 15 days illegally auctioned the vehicle on 16.08.2013. 1085/-(One thousand eighty five) in the loan amount. It is further pleaded that opposite party No. 3 issued notice of sale auction on dated 15.07.2013 which was dispatched by opposite party No. 2 on 31.07.2013. It is further pleaded that opposite parties without waiting for the period of 15 days illegally auctioned the vehicle on 16.08.2013. It is pleaded that at the time of auction market value of vehicle was Rs. 3.5 lac (Three lac fifty thousand) but the vehicle was auctioned in consideration amount of Rs. 131690/-(One lac thirty one thousand six hundred ninety). It is pleaded that now opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have demanded the loan amount. It is pleaded that Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief to the effect that opposite parties No. 1 to 3 be directed to waive of the entire vehicle loan amount. Complainant also sought additional relief that opposite parties be directed to refund the wrongly added amount in the loan account of complainant and to return the margin money to the tune of Rs. 123641/- paid by complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of receiving the amount till payment. Complainant also sought relief of compensation to the tune of Rs. 150000/-(One lac fifty thousand) on account of harassment and mental tension. In addition complainant also sought relief of Rs. 25000/-(Twenty five thousand) as litigation charges. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 3 pleaded therein that complaint is not maintainable. It is pleaded that consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint. It is pleaded that intricate question of law and fact are involved in consumer complaint. It is further pleaded that complainant is estopped to file present complaint due to his own act, conduct, commission and omissions. It is pleaded that as per agreement dispute inter se parties would be settled by Arbitrator under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. It is pleaded that consumer forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint in view of agreement dated 12.11.2010. It is further pleaded that vehicle was used for commercial purpose and vehicle was not purchased for self employment. It is pleaded that vehicle was financed and complainant obtained advance loan of Rs. 576000/-(Five lac seventy six thousand) plus financing charges and interest to the tune of Rs. It is further pleaded that vehicle was used for commercial purpose and vehicle was not purchased for self employment. It is pleaded that vehicle was financed and complainant obtained advance loan of Rs. 576000/-(Five lac seventy six thousand) plus financing charges and interest to the tune of Rs. 261229/-(Two lac sixty one thousand two hundred twenty nine). It is pleaded that total loan amount to the tune of Rs. 837299/-(Eight lac thirty seven thousand two hundred ninety nine) was repayable in 60 installments. It is pleaded that hypothecated vehicle was to be insured by complainant himself but if complainant would not insured the vehicle then as per agreement clause No. 3.8(a) & (b) the opposite parties were under legal obligations to insure the vehicle. It is further pleaded that complainant was irregular in payment of loan amount. It is denied that vehicle was repossessed by opposite parties No. 1 to 3 by using muscle power. It is pleaded that no F.I.R was lodged in the police station by complainant. It is further pleaded that complainant did not request the opposite parties not to auction the vehicle. It is pleaded that auction notice was not issued on 15.07.2013 but it was issued by opposite parties No. 2 on dated 30.07.2013 and was delivered on 02.08.2013. It is further pleaded that vehicle was sold in open auction on the highest bid of Rs. 150000/-(One lac fifty thousand). It is pleaded that complainant has engaged the driver and did not use vehicle for his self employment. It is further pleaded that Arbitrator has decided the matter on 28.03.2014 and proceedings under Section 138 of NIA Act also initiated. It is pleaded that opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have a legal right to recover the loan amount. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No. 5 pleaded therein that complainant has no cause of action against opposite party No. 5 and it is pleaded that opposite party No. 5 did not commit any deficiency in service. It is further pleaded that complaint against opposite party No. 5 be dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 20000/-(Twenty thousand). Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 5. It is further pleaded that complaint against opposite party No. 5 be dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 20000/-(Twenty thousand). Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 5. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No. 6 pleaded therein that complicated question of law and fact are involved in consumer complaint and complainant be relegated to civil court. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 6. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. 7. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 8. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether consumer complaint could be decided by consumer Fora after passing of final Award by Arbitrator under Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996 on same facts on merits. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that order passed by learned District Forum is contrary to law and contrary to proved facts and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused the entire record and after careful perusal of entire record it is observed that vide annexure-OPX final award relating to similar facts was passed by Arbitrator under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 on dated 28.03.2014. State Commission has carefully perused the award passed by Arbitrator and it is proved on record that Arbitrator has passed award to the tune of Rs. 417525/-(Four lac seventeen thousand five hundred twenty five) in favour of M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. and against Amin Chand and Chander Mani. State Commission is of the opinion that final award already stood passed by Arbitrator while exercising statutory powers. We are of the opinion that now remedy to complainant is only to challenge the award before competent authority of law under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to decide the present appeal on merits keeping in view the fact that final award relating to similar facts already stood passed by Arbitrator under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. 10. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that no notice was issued to complainant by arbitrator relating to Arbitration proceedings and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. We are of the opinion that award passed by Arbitrator could not be challenged before State Commission under Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is proved on record that Arbitrator has issued notice to complainant to appear on 07.02.2014 and present consumer complaint was filed by complainant on 05.03.2014 before learned District Forum. It is held that consumer complaint was filed before learned District Forum after issuance of notice by Arbitrator under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. It is proved on record that Arbitration proceedings were initiated prior to filing of consumer complaint. It is held that complainant could agitate the award before competent authority of law. 11. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite parties that order passed by learned District Forum is in accordance with law and in accordance with proved facts and on this ground appeal be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to dispose of appeal on merits keeping in view the final award passed by Arbitrator under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. It was held by Hon''ble National Commission in case reported in 2006(3) CPR 339 NC titled Installation Supply Ltd. v. Kangra Ex Serviceman Transport Co. & other that consumer complaint could not be decided by Consumer Fora after passing of final Award by Arbitrator under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. It is well settled law that ruling given by Hon''ble National Commission is binding upon District Forums and State Commission. In view of above stated facts point No. 1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 12. In view of findings upon point No. 1 above appeal is dismissed. Order of learned District Forum is affirmed. Final Award passed by Arbitrator annexure-OPX under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 will form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Final Award passed by Arbitrator annexure-OPX under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 will form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.