Mr. Justice T.M. Hassan Pillai, President—Denying the various allegations made in the complaint and also resisting the claim for granting reliefs prayed for in the complaint the opposite parties inter alia contended that “the dispute involved in the petition cannot be adjudicated before this Hon’ble Commission as it involves complicated question of facts and law. It also requires taking of elaborate evidence from many witnesses. In a summary procedure a case of sort mentioned above cannot be adjudicated by a Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act and the parties will have to be relegated to the Civil Court”.

2. The highest Court of the country had occasion to consider the question when a Forum can ask a complainant to approach the Civil Court in CCI Chambers Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. v. Development Credit Bank, III (2003) CPJ 9 (SC)= AIR 2003 SC 5882 and held that it is only when the dispute arising for adjudication is such as would require recording of lengthy evidence not permissible within the scope of a summary inquiry that a Forum under the Act may ask the complainant to approach the Civil Court. Supreme Court laying down the law made the following observations :

(6) It cannot be denied that Fora at the National level, the State level and at the District level have been constituted under the Act with the avowed object of providing summary and speedy remedy in conformity with the principles of natural justice, taking care of such grievances as are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Fora established under the Act. There Fora have been established and conferred with jurisdiction in addition to the conventional Courts. The principal object sought to be achieved by establishing such Fora is to relieve the conventional Courts of their burden which is ever increasing with the mounting arrears and where at the disposal is delayed because of the complicated and detailed procedure which at times is accompanied by technicalities. Merely because recording of evidence is required, or some questions of fact and law arise which would need to be investigated and determined, cannot be a ground for shutting the doors of any Forum under the Act to the person aggrieved.

(7) In the Indian Medical Association case (supra) this Court noticed the powers conferred on the several Fora under the Act, the procedure applicable (including the exercise of some powers of the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure having been made available to the Fora under the Act) and held that the nature of averments made in the complaint is not by itself enough to arrive at a conclusion that the complaint raises such complicated questions as cannot be determined by the NCDRC. It is only when the dispute arising for adjudication is such as would require recording of lengthy evidence not permissible within the scope of a summary inquiry that a Forum under the Act may ask the complainant to approach the Civil Court. The Fora made available under the Act are in addition to.

In Synco Industries case (supra) this Court upheld the order of NCDRC holding the complaint before it not a fit case to be tried under the Act and allowing liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court because this Court agreed with the opinion formed by the Commission that “very detailed evidence would have to be led, both to prove the claim and thereafter to prove the damages and expenses”. The Court concluded that in any event it was not an appropriate case to be heard and disposed of in a summary fashion”.

(8) In Amar Jwala Paper Mills (India) and Another case (supra) this Court set aside the order of NCDRC relegating a complainant to a Civil Court in spite of the complexity of the matter because the hearing had almost concluded before the Commission.

(9) In Dr. J.J. Merchant and Others case (supra) this Court dealing with the contention that complicated questions of facts cannot be decided in summary proceedings held —”this submission also requires to be rejected be