S.A. Kader, President. . This is a complaint under section 17 read with section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

2. The complainant entrusted two consignments of turmeric with the first opposite party, Public Career under Lorry Receipt Nos. 17 576 dated 24.4.1989 and No. 17671 dated 16.5.1989 at Erode for transport to and delivery at Calcutta. The consignment named in both the Lorry Receipts is Canara Bank, Calcutta. The original lorry receipts along with other documents were forwarded to Canara Bank, Calcutta. The ultimate' buyer has to make payments to Canara Bank, get endorsement of the lorry receipts in its favour and take delivery of the goods. The consignments were not delivered to the consignee by the first opposite party and the first opposite party is, therefore, guilty of deficiency of service and negligence. The complainant has insured these 2 consignments with the second opposite party and the second opposite party has not satisfied the claim. Hence this complaint for recovery of the sum of Rs. 1,60,965/- with interest at 24%.

3. The first opposite party contended that this matter required elaborate evidence and the proper remedy for the complainant lies in the Civil Court by way of a regular suit. On facts it is contended that the consignments duly reached its destination namely Calcutta and were taken delivery of by the ultimate consignee namely •the buyer M/s. Madhu Trading Company and that the buyer has also issued two cheques in favour of the complainant for Rs. 70,000/- each towards part payment of these consignments. On account of the rivalry between the complainant and the ultimate consignee Madhu Trading Company, the opposite party is dragged into this picture and this complaint has been filed. It, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4. The second opposite party raised similar contentions.

5. Exhibits A1 to A46 and B 1 to B13 are marked. No oral evidence has been let in on either side.

6. The points that arise for consideration are:

(1) Whether the complainant has to be referred to a civil suit?

(2) Whether there has been any deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the first or second opposite party or both?

(3) To what amount of compensation, if any, is the complainant entitled?

7. Point No.1: The case of the complainant is that he entrusted two consignments with the first opposite party to be transported to and delivered at Calcutta under two lorry receipts which are marked as Exhibits A2 and A5. The consignee under these two lorry receipts is Canara Bank, Calcutta. Evidently the consignments have not been delivered to the Canara Bank or to the endorsee from the Canara Bank. Hence this claim by the complainant. It is urged on behalf of the both the opposite parties that this is a fit matter which required elaborate evidence and it has, therefore, to be referred to be decided by a competent court• of civil jurisdiction. Reliance is sought to be placed on the decision of this Commission in M/s. K.M. Ahmed Koya and Sons v. United India Insurance Company No doubt in the said decision this Commission has held that where it appears to the concerned Forums under the Act that the issue raised cannot be determined without any elaborate oral and documentary evidence, it is open to the Forums to decline jurisdiction and rafter the parties to ordinary remedies by way of civil suit: This decision was based upon the decisions of the National Commission in Special Machines v. Punjab National Bank and Janata Machine Tools Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. In its subsequent decisions in S.K. Abdul Sukur v. State of Orissa” and Prem Singha and others v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.5, the National Commission has explained that the decisions in Special Machines, Karnal v. Punjab National Bank and Janata Machine Tools v. Oriental Insurance Company, must be confined to the facts of these cases and that it cannot be said that whenever the examination and cross-examination of witnesses is