The main legal point established is that the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act may not be the appropriate forum for cases involving complicated questions of law and facts, and that such cases should be tried in a Civil Court after payment of appropriate Court-fee.

Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa, President—This complaint was filed on 19.12.2001 claiming an amount of over Rs. 12.00 crores on the alleged ground of deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party-National Insurance Co. Ltd. in not meeting the insurance claim of the complainant for fire to his factory. This is how the prayer in the complaint was made.

“In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice this Hon’ble Commission may graciously be pleased to :

(a) Admit the complaint.

(b) Direct the respondent to forthwith settle the claim with the complainant to the tune of Rs. 242.71 lakhs. Being insurance claim lodged on 28.9.2000 alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of expiry of 45 days from the date of filing of the claim till the payment of the claim by the respondent Insurance Company;

(c) Direct the respondent Company to pay a sum of Rs. 968.30 lakhs, being the business loss suffered on account of non-payment/realization of insurance claim within the stipulated period alongwith interest after the expiry of 45th day from the date of filing the claim;

(d) Direct the payment of compensation as deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Commission for mental agony suffered by the complainant Company;

(e) Direct the cost of the litigation; and

(f) May pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. There were as many as six opposite parties — Chief General Manager, Rehabilitation Finance Department, IDBI, Mumbai and Assistant General Manager, Overseas Branch, State Bank of Hyderabad — were impleaded as opposite party Nos. 5 and 6. Opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were various officers of the first opposite party Insurance Company and were sued in their official designation. When the matter came up before us for admission we expressed our unhappiness the way reliefs were claimed which appeared to us not only unrealistic but also exorbitant. We gave opportunity to the complainant to amend the complaint. Amended complaint has been filed. Now there are three opposite parties who were earlier opposite parties 2, 3 and 4. Relief claimed now reads as under :

“In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice this Hon’ble Commission may graciously be pleased to :

(a) Admit the complaint.

(b) Direct the respondent to forthwith settle the claim with the complainant to the tune of Rs. 242.71 lakhs. Being Insurance Claim lodged on 28.9.2000 alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of expiry of 45 days from the date of filing of the claim till the payment of the claim by the respondent Insurance Company.

(c) Direct the payment of compensation as deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Commission for mental agony suffered by the complainant company.

(d) Diret the cost of the litigation, and

(e) May pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. It would appear that after the intimation of fire was given to the opposite party-Insurance Company. It appointed three Surveyors namely, (i) M/s. Moinuddin Mohammed & Company; (ii) M/s. J.B. Boda Surveyors Pvt. and (iii) M/s. Sisir & Ravi Associates. By letter dated 20.12.2001 opposite-party-insurer repudiated the claim on the grounds; (i) complainant had submitted fabricated purchase order to the Surveyors thereby violating condition of the fire policy; (ii) finished goods stored in the godown were not covered under the policy; and (iii) complainant had disposed of all the salvage of the damaged goods without the consent of the Surveyor/insurer which deprived the opportunity for assessing the loss/damage properly. This letter of repudiation though was issued after date of filing of the original complaint but before filing of the amended complaint on 16.4.2002.

4. This complant raises complex questions of law and facts. To prove its case complainant will have to lead