—ORDER— -The complainant in this case is M/s Special Machines, Karnal which is a proprietory concern (owned by one Shri R.M. Jain), which has established a small-scale industrial unit at Karnal for the manufacture of welding electrodes. For the purpose of the said business the complainant had obtained loan facilities from the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited, Karnal by way of Cas Credit (Hypothecation) Cash Credit (Pledge), Overdraft (Documentary Bills), Letter, of Credit and Performance Guarantee etc. According to the comniainant because of the failure on the part of the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited to take steps to provide timely financial services, the complainants business ran into serious difficulties and the complainant suffered heavy losses as a result thereof The complainant has alleged inter alia that though his concern had been Pro-mised services by the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited such as single head account operation non-insistence of margin money etc., these promised services were unilaterally withdrawn without any justification or reason and without following statutory norms and policy guidelines framed and proclaimed by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time in respect of small- scale industrial units in the country. It is further alleged that during 1982-83 the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited unilaterally and arbitrarily insisted , the "bifurcation" of the complainants accounts from one head to several heads: insisted on margins and on daily drawing powers and chocked out the initand letter of credits The complaint-petition goes on to state that the petitioner who had already working capital shortage was compelled by the first respondent Bank to devert money form working capital to fixed deposits in violation of all the Banking Laws and norms. The complainant has the further grievance that the first respondent has charged a very high rate of interest as well as unduly high banking service charges and the accounts of complainant were not maintained and operated by the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited as per the Banking Laws, Rules, Regulations and norms and as per Reserve Bank of India Circulars, Guldelines, etc. According to the complainant the first respondent had committed many errors, irregularities and illegalities resulting in the complainant being deprived of availing the banking and financial services which the first respondent was under a legal obligation to provide to its customers. According to the complainant the first respondent had committed many errors, irregularities and illegalities resulting in the complainant being deprived of availing the banking and financial services which the first respondent was under a legal obligation to provide to its customers. The complainant states that because of the aforesaid and other acts and omissions of the part of the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited his small-scale industrial unit could not work normally, its sales came down steadily and the interest burden increased disproportionately. The first respondent Bank is said to have illegally stopped operation of accounts by the complainant from 21 .05.1986 by sending a letter directing the complainant not to issue cheques without proper arrangement, which again is alleged to have been done in violation of all Banking Laws and practices. Another ground of grievance put forward in the complaint-petition is that the recommended working capita limit had not been sanctioned to the complainant by the first respondent Bank and due to this the complainant had to face great hardships in the working of his small-scale unit and in maintaining normal production and sale. The complainant has also alleged that he was put to very serious loss on account of the failure of the first respondent Bank to extend to him financing facility for procuring the basic raw-material namely, M. S. Rimming Quality Steel from Steel Authority of India Tata / Iron and Steel Company Ltd. at control price. It is alleged that it was because of the failure of the first respondent Bank to meet the complainants requirements of finances for the smooth running of his unit that the complainants unit suffered heavy losses. 2. On 18-12-1986, the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited was amalgamated with the Punjab National Bank. The complainant has impleaded the Karnal Branch of the Punjab National Bank as Respondent No. 2 and the Head Office of the said Bank through its Chairman as Respondent No.3 in the petition. The prayer in the complaint-petition is for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,489. 39 lakhs as representing the losses suffered by the complainant as on 30-6-1989 under the 12 heads set out at page 69 of the complaint-petition. The prayer in the complaint-petition is for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,489. 39 lakhs as representing the losses suffered by the complainant as on 30-6-1989 under the 12 heads set out at page 69 of the complaint-petition. They cover losses caused on account of sudden insistence on margins, loss "due to letter of credits", loss dud to wrongly charged interest on bills, loss due to unavailed amount of F.D. Rs, loss due to delay in release of F.D. Rs, loss due to non-procurement of Wire Rod from SAIL/TISCO, loss on account of non-crediting of realised amounts, loss due to charges paid to Godown Keeper, loss due to inapt handling of documents, loss due to "documents till outstanding", loss said to have been caused by wrongful set off of accounts and loss Caused to the complainant due to levy of excess interest on F.D. Rs. The aforesaid amount of compensation is claimed by the complainant from the Punjab National Bank as the succes or-in-interest of the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited. Items shown as Serial Nos. 1 to 10 and 12 mentioned at page 69 of the complaint petition relate to transactions that took place prior to 1986 and the compensation is sought to be recovered from the Punjab National Bank in its capacity as a successor-in-interest of the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited. Item No. 11, which deals with alleged wrongful set off of accounts is a claim which arose after the takeover of the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited by the Punjab National Bank. I 3. The complainant has relied strongly on a report prepared by M/S Haryana Industrial Consultants Limited estimating the loss suffered by the complainant-petitioner at Rs. 15.44 crores as on 31-12 1987. According to the complainant on an updating of the losses following the same norms as adopted by M/s HARICON by the Chartered Accountants of the complainant upto the period 30 6-1989, the losses have been found to aggregate to Rs. 34.89 acres. 4. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed a statement setting out various grounds of preliminary objections against the maintainability of the complaint before this Commission. 34.89 acres. 4. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed a statement setting out various grounds of preliminary objections against the maintainability of the complaint before this Commission. it is submitted therein by the aforesaid respondents that the complaint has suppressed from this Commission the fact that as early as in December, 1988, about seven months before the filing of the present complaint the respondent have filed a suit in the Court of the learned Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Karnal against the complainant and Ors. for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,36,13,906.23 with pendentilite and future interest as representing the amounts due from the complaint under the different heads of loan accounts, cash credit account etc, that he had with the erstwhile Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited. The respondents contended that the claims, question and issues arising in the present complainant are inextricably interwined with the claims, question and issues arising in the said pending civil suit since the very same Bank account facilities and transactions are in issue in both the proceedings. It is further submitted in the objection statement that to a great extent, common documentary and oral evidence will have to be adduced and scrutinised in the two proceedings and as the matter is thus sub-judice before the learned Senior Sub Judge, Karnal, this Commission should reject the complaint on the said preliminary ground. 5. Another ground of preliminary objection raised by the respondents is that the petitioners claim which constitutes the subject matter of the complaint is clearly barred by limitation inasmuch as the complainant relates to the alleged negligence, breach of duty and defaults on the part of the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited in connection with the operation of the petitioners account with the said Bank. It is pointed out by the respondent that the last transaction in the said Bank account was on 23-5-1986 and since the complaint-petition has been filed only on 18-7-1989, it is manifestly barred by limitation, 6. . Yet another ground of objection raised by those respondents is that the complaint-petition involves numerous intricate and highly disputed questions of fact as well as law, the disposal of which will necessarily requires a lengthy, full-scale trial and the recording of voluminous evidence of numerous witnesses and the scrutiny of a very large volume of documentary evidence. . Yet another ground of objection raised by those respondents is that the complaint-petition involves numerous intricate and highly disputed questions of fact as well as law, the disposal of which will necessarily requires a lengthy, full-scale trial and the recording of voluminous evidence of numerous witnesses and the scrutiny of a very large volume of documentary evidence. It is submitted by the respondents that the issues involved are so complex that they cannot properly be decided on the basis of affidavits and hence the appropriate and convenient forum in which all these issues can satisfactorily be agitated is a Civil Court before which the respondent Banks civil suit is already pending. The respondents point out that it is fully open to the complainant, who is yet to file his written statement in the said suit to seek the reliefs claimed in the present petition by way of a counter-claim in the suit and to have all the issues raised by him determined by the Civil Court after a proper trial. 7. Lastly, it is contended by the respondents that since the essence and substance of the complaint is that the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had not extended and made available to the petitioner all the facilities and financial assistance which the petitioner required for his small-scale industrial unit, the said grievance will no fall within the scope of Section 2(c) (iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) and this Commission should decline jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the complaint for this reason also. 8. Without prejudice to the right to urge the aforesaid preliminary objections the respondents have filed their detailed reply traversing on merits the allegations contained in the complaint petition and refuting in toto the claim of the complainant for recovery of any amount of compensation from them. 9. In view of the preliminary objections raised by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against the maintainability of the petition, we considered it fit to hear arguments on the said question in the first instance before proceeding to hear the case on merits, if the same is found necessary after deciding on the sustainability of the preliminary objections. 10. Shri Soil J. Sorabjee, learned Attorney General of India appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and addressed arguments in support of the preliminary objections. Dr. 10. Shri Soil J. Sorabjee, learned Attorney General of India appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and addressed arguments in support of the preliminary objections. Dr. L. M. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate appeared on behalf of the complainant-petitioner and contended that the preliminary objections should be overruled as being devoid of any merits or substance. 11. The learned Attorney General drew our attention to various paragraphs in the complaint-petition alleging misappropriation, fraudulent manipulation of accounts, wrongful set off between different accounts without due authorisation, incorrect mode and manner of maintenance and operation of accounts and refusal to effect a settlement of accounts etc, as giving rise to the complainants cause of action for claiming compensation and contended that these are not matters which can be decided by this Commission in proceedings before it which are essentially summary in nature. Elaborating this contention it was submitted by the learned Attorney General that for a full and satisfactory adjudication of the subject matter of the complaint and the allegations of fact contained in, which are hotly disputed by the respondents, elaborate, oral and documentary evidence will have to be adduced and a scrutiny of the various accounts and transactions which the complainant had with the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited over a period of a long number of years will have to be made including a detailed settlement of accounts and ascertainment of what amount is due from which party to whom. The learned Attorney submitted that such an elaborate exercise is not contemplated to be performed by this Commission in proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act and it can be appropriately done only by a Civil Court. 12. Nextly, it was urged by the learned Attorney General that the whole matter is sub-judice before the Senior Sub Judge, Karnal where the suit instituted by the Bank for recovery of the amounts due to it under the very same set of accounts is pending trial. Strong reliance was placed on the fact that though the complainant has not so far chosen to file his written statement in the said suit, which was instituted as early as on 11-12-1988, he had filed a detailed counter-statement in answer to an interlocutory petition for attachment before judgment etc. Strong reliance was placed on the fact that though the complainant has not so far chosen to file his written statement in the said suit, which was instituted as early as on 11-12-1988, he had filed a detailed counter-statement in answer to an interlocutory petition for attachment before judgment etc. filed by the Bank before the said Court under Order 38, Rule 1 C.P.C. and Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. Copies of the plaint filed in that suit as well as of the counter-statement filed by the complainant herein in answer to the plaintiffs petition for attachment before judgment have been produced before us by the respondent Bank. The learned Attorney General pointed out that in the said reply-statement the complainant has put forward many of the pleas contained in the present complaint-petition as grounds for contending that the plaintiff has no prima facie case in the suit. Counsel laid great stress on the express averment contained in the said counter-statement that "the plaintiff Bank and their Bank Branch at Model Town, Karnal in their inter alia banking dealings with the answering defendants, have caused termendous losses/damages to the tune of Rs. 26,57,02,564/-for and upto the period ending on 31.12.1988 on account of their sheer negligence, laches misappropriation of accounts, fraudulent working, ultra vires and arbitrary dealings, diversified schemes, anomalous, irregular and [improper working, preposterous intention and non-cooperation meted out." The Counsel also referred to the further averments in the said reply-statements which read thus: "They have also flinched miserably to provide financial assistance to the answering defendants if and when necessiated, in accordance with statutory wishes of the policies, plans, instructions, schemes and Circulars proclaimed from time to time by the Government of India, Reserve Bank of India, Industrial "Development Bank of India. They have also flinched to permit the answering defendants to the access for prudent facilities admissible to the entrepreneurs of small-scale unit; thereunder and inasmuch as tire answering defendants are due to recover an amount of Rs. 26,57,02,564 as on 11-12-1988 from the plaintiff Bank as losses/damages in accordance with the account reports lying documented and released by the Haryana Industrial Consultants Limited, Sonepat and M/s Midha and Associates, Chartered Accountants, Karnal and in view of the huge amount of damages recoverable from the plaintiff Bank the present application becomes frivolous and unmaintainable both in law and facts on records automatically." 13. In the light of the aforesaid averments contained in the reply-statement filed by the complainant to the application of the plaintiff under Order 38, Rule 1 C.P.C. made to the Civil Court, the learned Attorney General contended before us that the issues sought to be raised by the petitioner in the present complaint-petition are matters which are inextricably interwined with the questions arising for adjudication before the Civil Court in the pending suit and the matter being thus clearly sub-judice, this Commission should decline to exercise its jurisdiction over it. It is further submitted that the proper remedy for the complainant is to put forward his claim for compensation, if any, by way of a counter-claim in the said suit and he should be relegated to pursue the said remedy. 14. The learned Attorney General also pressed before us his contention that excepting for the claim covered by Item at Serial No. 11 at page 69 of the complaint-petition where the complainant has listed the various heads under which compensation is sought by him, all the other items relate to matters that took place much prior to 1986 and hence as on the date of filing of the present petition—18-7-1989, those claims have become time barred. The claim under Item No. 11 amounts only to less than Rs. 10 lakhs and hence it contended that the said claim cannot be agitated before this Commission. 15. In support of his contention that having regard to the fact that the adjudication of the petitioners complaint involves determination of complicated question of disputed facts which can be decided only after an elaborate trial involving the taking of extensive oral evidence as well as scrutiny of voluminous documentary evidence, this is not a suitable case for adjudication by this Commission in proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act which are only summary in nature, the learned Attorney relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in ( AIR 1976 SC. 386 )(1) wherein it has been laid down that proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution are inapt for the adjudication of complicated questions of fact. 386 )(1) wherein it has been laid down that proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution are inapt for the adjudication of complicated questions of fact. The learned Attorney General also sought to support the said contention by citing the decisions in 35 Company Cases 651, 58 Company Cases 843 and ( AIR 1966 SC 489 (2) wherein a similar view was taken with respect to proceedings under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956 for rectification of register. 16. Dr. L.M. Singvi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant-petitioner strongly urged that the preliminary objections are wholly devoid of substance and hence should be overruled. It was submitted by him that the pendency of the Civil Suit instituted by the respondent Bank before the Senior Sub Judge, Karnal cannot operate as a bar to the jurisdiction of this Commission to adjudicate upon the present complaint. It was argued by Counsel that the Consumer Protection Act has been enacted with intent to provide a special, speedy and complete remedy for an aggrieved complainant and it would militate wholly against the rationale and object of the enactment to exclude aggrieved consumers from it on the basis of vague and unspecific pleas of ouster of jurisdiction. Reliance was placed by Counsel on Section 3 of the Act which provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force and it was contended that this provision clearly indicates that the forum, remedies, adjudication,procedure and reliefs, provided under this Act is an additional dispensation which is not to be ousted or curtailed by reference to the existence of ordinary Civil Court proceedings. Reliance was also placed by the learned Counsel on the decision of the House of Lords reported in Davies v. Powell (3) and the ruling of the Kings Bench in Yelland v- Powell Duffryn (4) affirming the legal position that provisions akin to Section 3 of the Act expand and add to the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal and it may not be limited in any way by reference to pre-existing or other statutory remedies. 17. Nextly, it was submitted by Dr. 17. Nextly, it was submitted by Dr. L.M. Singhvi that there is no identity or even similarity between the suit proceedings pending at Karnal and the present complaint and that the two proceedings are wholly distinct and separate and have virtually no point of intersection. In the submission of Counsel the suit filed by the Bank is a simple action to recover an alleged loan while the complaint filed before this Commission relates to specific deficiencies shortcomings, shortfalls and irregularities in the services provided by the Bank to the complainant. It was also pointed out that while there are seven defendants in the suit filed at Karnal only two amongst them are parties to the present complaint, and the contentions and claims to be considered in the present complaint are wholly different from the issues in the suit. 18. Dealing with the plea put forward by the Bank that an adjudication of the complaint involves determination of complex questions of fact, Counsel for the complainant submitted that no disputed facts are involved and an adjudication of the subject matter of the complaint would necessiate only an interpretation of the documentary evidence. Counsel also stated during arguments that he was prepared to give an undertaking that no complex examination and cross-examination of witnesses would be invoked by the complainant. 19. On the question of limitation raised by the respondent Bank, it was submitted by Dr. Singhvi that the foundation of the claim of the complainant being the evaluation and itemisation of the losses and damages caused to him which was done only as per the HARICON Report, which came into existence only on 5-3-1988, the date of the said report is the relevant starting point for computation of limitation. In support of the said contention that limitation would apply only from the date of knowledge of the complainant of the quantified specific damagd and loss which he had suffered, reliance was placed by the learned Counsel on the decisions reported in AIR 1941 PC. 1(5), AIR 1926 Mad. 66 (6), AIR 1931 Lahore 70 (7) and AIR 1987 SC 1602 (8) was also pointed out that from 25-5-1986 to 18 12-1986, a moratorium had been imposed upon all activities of the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited and during the said period time could not run against the complainant. 1(5), AIR 1926 Mad. 66 (6), AIR 1931 Lahore 70 (7) and AIR 1987 SC 1602 (8) was also pointed out that from 25-5-1986 to 18 12-1986, a moratorium had been imposed upon all activities of the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited and during the said period time could not run against the complainant. Lastly, it was urged that the Act having been enacted only on 26-12-86 and Chapter III thereof having come into force only with effect from 1-7-1987, limitation can run only from the date of the existence of the forum in which the relief in respect of the cause of action is to be sought. 20. After bestowing our careful consideration on the submission made before us by learned Counsel appearing on both sides, we have come to the conclusion that the preliminary objections raised by the respondent Bank deserve to be upheld. 21. In the orders passed by us in Original Petition No. 12 of 1989, dated August 23, 1989 and O.P.. No. 2 of 1989 dated August 31, 1989, we have taken the view that a complaint pertaining to a transaction of borrowing from a Bark voicing the grievance that the Bank has not been accommodating the complainant sufficiently in the matter of grant of adequate nursing and financing facilities for a small-scale industry which consequently became sick, the proper forum to agitate the said grievance is a Civil Court and proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act cannot be invoked for seeking relief. We have also held in quite a few cases that complaints by borrowers from Banks against failure to provide adequate financing facility to an industry or business cannot form the subject matter of adjudication under the Act since in the matter of grant or withholding of further advances and insisting on margin money etc. the Banks have to exercise their discretion and act in accordance with their best judgment after taking into account various relevant factors and hence mere failure to provide financial facility or assistance cannot be said to constitute "deficiency in service" as defined in Section 2(1) (g) of the Act. We see no reason to deviate from the aforesaid view which we have already taken in similar matters. 22. We see no reason to deviate from the aforesaid view which we have already taken in similar matters. 22. In the present case the crux of the grievance of the complainant is that the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited arbitrarily failed to provide the complainant financing facilities which were badly required for his small-scale industrial unit, that the Bank arbitrarily insisted on bifurcation of the petitioners accounts from one head to several heads, insisted on margins, insisted on dai!y drawing powers and compelled the complainant to divert money from the working capital to F. D. Rs. in alleged violation of all the Banking Laws and norms and in contravention of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and the Government of India from time to time. The petitioner also alleges that there has been fraud and misappropriation by the Bank in respect of maintenance of accounts and set off and transfer of accounts and it is as a result thereof that a huge debit has been shown as outstanding in his account. The complainant has the further grievance that in addition to the financial problems and losses caused to him by the afore mentioned acts and omissions on the part of the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited, the said Bank also caused enormous losses to the petitioner by refusing to extend the requisite financial assistance to him for lifting the basic raw material namely, M.S. Rimming Quality Steel from Steel Authority of India/Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited and as a result thereof the petitioner was forced to buy the raw material at open market rates which were very much higher when compared to the rates of SAIL/T1SCO, thereby causing huge losses. The failure of the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited to raise the working capital limit sanctioned to the petitioner and its refusal to accommodate the petitioner as per his enhanced requirement and the heavy drain caused by the rising prices of raw material has again been mentioned by the petitioner as the main reason for the petitioner suffering huge losses and as a ground for making the bank liable for compensating the petitioner for all those losses. Such being the thrust of the complainant in the complaint-petition, we are clearly of the view that this case is fully covered by the principles laid down by us in our earlier orders referred to above and that the petitioner should seek his remedy before the ordinary Civil Court and not before this Commission. 23. This Commission has also held in earlier cases, as a matter of policy and principle that where the subject matter of a complaint is sub-judice before the ordinary Civil Court, a concurrent adjudication in respect of the same will not be conducted by this Commission under the Act. The objection is not really on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but is one based on considerations of propriety and prudence keeping in view the necessity for avoidance of conflicting decisions and multiplicity of proceedings. 24. We are unable to agree with the argument put forward on behalf of the complainant that the questions arising in the civil suit before the Senior Sub Judge, Karnal are totally distinct and different from those arising in the present complaint-petition. A mere perusal of the reply filed by the complainant herein to the application filed by the respondent Bank under Order 31 Rule 5 C.P.C. and Order 39 Rules 2 and 3 C.P.C. before the learned Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Karnal clearly shows that in support of the defence of the complainant that the plaintiff has no prima facie case for obtaining any relief in the said suit, he has expressly raised pleas of negligence, laches, fraud, misappropriation of accounts, violation of Circulars, Rules and Regulations of the Reserve Bank of India and Government of India as having been committed by the plaintiff Bank in their various banking dealings with the complainant. He has also contended that the Bank had failed to maintain faithful and correct accounts in its dealings with the complainant and that the suit is bad for having flinched to reveal as to how the plaintiff Bank has provided for need based financial assistance to the answering defendant to quench the first of their necessities. He has also contended that the Bank had failed to maintain faithful and correct accounts in its dealings with the complainant and that the suit is bad for having flinched to reveal as to how the plaintiff Bank has provided for need based financial assistance to the answering defendant to quench the first of their necessities. Another specific plea taken is that the plaint is bad for having flinched to reveal as to how the plaintiff Bank had allowed access to the answering defendants entrepreneurs for facilities in accordance with the comprehensive schemes, plans, schedules, notifications, instructions, Circulars, Rules and Regulations proclaimed by the Government of India, Reserve Bank of India and the Industrial Development Bank of India from time to time right from the year 1975 when they or their predecessor Bank—the erstwhile Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited, Karnal— had started banking dealings with the answering defendants. The complainant has accused the plaintiff Bank for having charged interest excessively and arbitrarily. Another averment in the said reply-statement is that "the plaintiff Bank have flinched to discharge their reciprocal duties towards the answering defendants in their inter alia banking dealings ipso facto and have since failed to provide for need based financial assistance to them if and when necessiated by them for smooth exercise in their business operations" and hence no profit could be generated in the small scale units right from the inception. The reply closes with the additional plea which runs as follows: "That the plaintiff Bank and their Bank Branch at Model Town, Karnal in their inter alia Banking dealings with the answering defendants have caused termendous losses/damages to the tune of Rs. 26,57,02,564.00 (Rupees twenty six crores fifty seven lakhs two thousand five hundred and sixty four) only for and upto the period ending on 31.12.1988, on account of their sheer negligence, laches, misappropriation of accounts, fraudulent working, ultra vires and arbitrary dealings, diversified schemes, anomalous, irregular and improper working, preposterous intentions and non-cooperation meted out. They have also flinched miserably to provide for need based financial assistance to the answering defendants if and when necessiated, in accordance with statutory wishes of the policies, plans, instructions, schemes and circulars proclaimed from time to time by the Government of India, Reserve Bank of India and Industrial Development Bank of India. They have also flinched miserably to provide for need based financial assistance to the answering defendants if and when necessiated, in accordance with statutory wishes of the policies, plans, instructions, schemes and circulars proclaimed from time to time by the Government of India, Reserve Bank of India and Industrial Development Bank of India. They have also flinched to permit the answering defendants to the access for prudent facilities admissible to the entrepreneurs of small scale unit, thereunder and inasmuch as the answering defendants are due to recover an amount of Rs. 26,57,02,564.00 as on 11. 12. 1988 from the plaintiff bank as losses/damages in accordance with the account reports lying documented and released by the Haryana Industrial Consultants Limited, Sonepat and M/s Midha and Associates, Chartered Accountants, Karnal and in view of the huge amount of damages recoverable from the plaintiff Bank the present application becomes frivolous, infructuous and unmaintainable both in law and facts on records, automatically." 25. From the foregoing pleas put forward by the complainant as grounds for showing that the plaintiff has no prima facie case in the suit which have undoubtedly to be treated as an integral part of his defence to the suit in the absence of any written statement having been filed by him, it is manifest that there is a clear overlapping and interwining of the questions arising for determi-nation in the suit and those which are sought to be adjudicated in the present complaint. The matter is thus sub-judice before the ordinary Civil Court and hence we do not consider it right and proper to enter upon an adjudication of the merits of the present complaint. 26. We also find that there is force in the submissions made on behalf of the Respondent Bank that having regard to the complex nature of the questions of fact and law arising for determination in the light of the elaborate pleadings and documents filed by both sides, it will not be possible to satisfactorily decide the issues involved in summary time hound proceedings before this Commission. The complaint-petition runs into 70 pages and the petitioner has produced along with the complaint several Annexures and documents which cover about 228 pages. The complainant has also filed a rejoinder with 54 Annexures as well as a further reply running into 196 pages. The complaint-petition runs into 70 pages and the petitioner has produced along with the complaint several Annexures and documents which cover about 228 pages. The complainant has also filed a rejoinder with 54 Annexures as well as a further reply running into 196 pages. We have already set out in the preceding paragraphs a brief summery of the allegations in the complaint and it would be seen therefrom that there are serious allegations of manipulation of accounts, misappropriation, fraud, violation of banking norms, rules as well as circulars and guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, over charging of interest, omission to give credits, illegal insistence on margins, delay in release of F.D. Rs. inapt handling of documents and wrongful insistence on bifurcation of accounts etc. Almost all these allegations and charges have been hotly contradicted in the reply statement and "reply to rejoinder" filed on behalf of the respondent Bank enclosing as annexures several documents and extracts of accounts running into 299 pages. The Bank has strongly denied that there was any misappropriation, fraud or manipulation of accounts by the first respondent and it has given its version as to why the erstwhile Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited had to call for further security such as F.D. Rs. and to impose curbs on the advances to the complainant. It has been alleged by the respondent Bank that the complainant in his dealings with the Bank was guilty of gross unfairness and serious financial indiscipline and the main case of the paucity of working capital for his small scale industrial unit was the wrongful diversion of funds meant for the working capital into his personal account and utilisation of the same for construction of luxurious residential building and other nonproductive assets. It is also alleged that the compla-inant floated two or three other partnership firms with himself and his close relatives as partners with a view to avoid the incidence of excise duty and diverted the sales of the products manufactured in his small scale-industrial unit-(M/s Special Machines, Karnal) to the accounts of the two other firms. There is also an allegation that the complainant firm from time to time despatched goods on consignment basis to various shopkeepers and agents through a particular Transport Company and submitted the lorry receipts to the Bank along with bills etc. There is also an allegation that the complainant firm from time to time despatched goods on consignment basis to various shopkeepers and agents through a particular Transport Company and submitted the lorry receipts to the Bank along with bills etc. for collection of the amounts of the commitments from the consignee on the faith of which the erstwhile Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited advanced 85% of the amounts of the bills in anticipation of the collection of the bills from the consignee. In spite of the fact that the G.R. or lorry receipts contained a specific warranty that the consignment shall be stored at the destination under the control of the transport operator and shall be delivered to or to the order of the consignee Banke whose name was mentioned in the receipts and that the goods will under no circumstance be delivered to any one without written authority from the Bank, the complainant is alleged to have colluded with the transporter and got the goods delivered to the shopkeepers concerned and obtained payments directly from the drawees of the bills with the result that the hundies were returned dishonoured. It is alleged by the respondent Bank that despite the complainant being informed about such return of the hundies and his being called upon to make payment no payment was made by the complainant and as a result thereof in the documentary (Bills overdrafts) account an amount of more than Rs. 53 lakhs became outstanding. Similarly, there are allegations of irregularities having been committed by the complainant in respect of various letters of credit which were opened by the Bank from time to time at his instance. According to the submission of the Bank the complainant miserably failed to fulfil his contractual obligations to the Bank and did not submit stock statement, inventories and honour the committments made by him. According to the submission of the Bank the complainant miserably failed to fulfil his contractual obligations to the Bank and did not submit stock statement, inventories and honour the commitments made by him. According to the answering respondents it was in the said context of persistent irregularities and financial indiscipline-attributed to the complainant that the Bank was compelled to restrict further advance and to insist on securities etc. There are also other similar pleas taken by the respondent Bank. According to the answering respondents it was in the said context of persistent irregularities and financial indiscipline-attributed to the complainant that the Bank was compelled to restrict further advance and to insist on securities etc. There are also other similar pleas taken by the respondent Bank. All these would require detailed investigations after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence. 27. We have already referred to the statement made by Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant that he is prepared to undertake not to press for any detailed examination of witnesses on his side but we cannot ignore the nature of the pleas raised by the Bank in its defence and the submission made on its behalf by the learned Attorney that elaborate oral as well as documentary evidence will have to be adduced. We find that having regard to the complicated nature of the pleadings filed in the case and the issues of fact arising therefrom, the submission made by the respondent Bank that the questions arising for consideration in the case cannot be satisfactorily adjudicated upon without elaborate oral and documentary evidence being adduced and scrutinised is well founded. The contentions advanced by the plaintiff that there has been manipulation of accounts, failure to give credits, over charging of interest at various stages and incorrect maintenance of accounts etc. would necessiate a detailed scrutiny of the books of accounts maintained by the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited and its successor-in-interest (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) in relation to the different heads of transactions (accounts) that the complainant had with the said Bank over a period of more than 12 years (1975-76 to 1987-88). Such elaborate scrutiny and settlement of accounts can be satisfactorily undertaken and performed only in a regular civil suit and not in proceedings before this Commission under the Act which are more or less summary in nature. 28. The procedure for disposal of complaints under the Act has been laid down in Section 13 of the Act, the provisions of which are made applicable to proceedings before the National Commission by Rule 14 (2) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987. 28. The procedure for disposal of complaints under the Act has been laid down in Section 13 of the Act, the provisions of which are made applicable to proceedings before the National Commission by Rule 14 (2) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 13 of the Act show beyond doubt that the statute does not contemplate the determination of complicated issues of fact involving taking of elaborate oral evidence and adducing of voluminous documentary evidence and a detailed scrutiny and assessment of such evidence. It is no doubt true that the forums constituted under the Act are vested with the power to examine witnesses on oath and to order discovery and production of documents. But such power is to be exercised in cases where the issues involved are simple such as the defective quality of any goods purchased or any shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of a service which the respondent has contracted to perform for consideration. Even in such cases, if it appears to the concerned Forum under the Act that the issues raised cannot be determined without taking elaborate oral and documentary evidence it is open to it to decline to exercise jurisdiction and refer the party to his ordinary remedy by way of suit. 29. We are accordingly of the opinion that in view of the complex nature of the questions of fact and law arising in the case for the determination for which voluminous oral as well as documentary evidence will have to he adduced mand considered involving also the scrutiny and settlement of several accounts which the complainant had with the Bank under various heads for a period of nearly 12 years, no satisfactory adjudication of the matter can be conducted in proceedings under the Act. Hence we decline to adjudicate upon the complaint and refer the complainant to his remedy before the Civil Court. 30. Since a suit instituted by the respondent Bank is already pending before the learned Senior Sub Judge, Karnal, it is perfectly open to the complainant if so advised to file a counter-claim in which he can agitate all the matters in respect of which he has made the claim for compensation against the Bank in the present complaint-petition. 30. Since a suit instituted by the respondent Bank is already pending before the learned Senior Sub Judge, Karnal, it is perfectly open to the complainant if so advised to file a counter-claim in which he can agitate all the matters in respect of which he has made the claim for compensation against the Bank in the present complaint-petition. With due respect, we are not impressed by the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the complainant that since fairly heavy court fee will have to be paid for such a counter-claim the complainant should be given the opportunity to have recourse to the cheap remedy under the Act and seek an adjudication of the matter from this Commission. 31. In view of the preceding discussion and the findings recorded by us it is unnecessary for us to consider the question of limitation raised by the respondent Bank. We uphold the preliminary objections raised by the respondent Bank other than the one relating to the bar of limitation, on which we express no opinion, and reject this complaint-petition without going-into the merits of the case.