ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition impugning the order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and others (for short ‘the Commission’), whereby application filed by the petitioner praying for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it involves complicated questions of law and fact, was dismissed.

2. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 2/complainant (for short ‘the Complainant’) filed complaint before the Commission claiming that huge loss of Rs. 7,30,76,036/- was suffered by it on account of flash floods in Srinagar in September 2014. In fact the floods had already hit the area where the showroom of the complainant was situated. By misleading, he got the insurance cover under ‘business shield policy’ from the petitioner company. Prior to that, the complainant already had the insurance policy from the National Insurance Company Limited covering the period from 07.05.2014 to 06.05.2015. In fact the material which has been placed on record by the petitioner before the Commission clearly established that the floods had hit the showroom of the complainant on 04.09.2014 at 11.15 a.m., whereas the policy from the petitioner company was taken on 04.09.2014 at 17.47 hrs.

3. While filing the claim, the complainant submitted that the date and time of loss was 06.09.2014 at 11.00 hrs, whereas in the entry in the Daily Dairy Register at the Police Station, Pantha Chowk, which is located close to the showroom of the petitioner, the floods had hit the area on 04.09.2014 at 11.15 a.m. He further submitted that in the investigation conducted by the Surveyor appointed by the petitioner/company, it has been established that the claim was fraudulent as prior to the insurance cover taken by the petitioner, the flood had already damaged the property of the complainant. The submission is that under these circumstances, it being the case of fraud on the face of it, examination and cross-examination of witnesses would be required with evidence in detail, hence, the complainant should be relegated to avail of its remedy before the Civil Court. In summary proceedings, complicated questions of law and fact cannot be adjudicated upon. It was further argued that judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in (2002) 2 SCC 1 titled Synco Industries vs State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and others was cited before the Commission. However, the same has not been referred to. As against that the judgment in J. J. Merchant and others v. Shrimath Chaturvedi, (2002) 6 SCC 635 has been referred to and relied upon. The judgment in Synco Industries’ case was earlier in time. The same was not referred to in the subsequent judgment in JJ Merchants and other’s case (supra). Hence, keeping in view the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. S. K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589, the earlier view was required to be followed.

4. It has been opined in Synco Industries’ case (supra) that in case the claim made by the complainant before the Commission was for crores of rupees for which obviously detailed evidence was required to be led, it would not be appropriate to decide the case in a summary fashion. Order passed by the National Consumers Redressal Commission relegating the party therein to approach the civil court was upheld. In the case in hand also the complainant has claimed Rs. 7,30,76,036/- The intention of the complainant to defraud the petitioner is evident from the fact that subsequent insurance policy was not taken by the complainant from the same company namely the National Insurance Company Limited from which it had earlier taken the insurance policy. Rather it approached the petitioner company. He further submitted that the date of loss submitted for claim to the National Insurance Company was intervening night of 05/06.09.2014, whereas different time and date has been mentioned while filing the claim with the petiti