ORDER 1. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED A CLAIM BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT INSURANCE COMPANY FOR DAMAGES UNDER FOUR HEADS: (I) EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE (II) MACHINERY BREAKDOWN (DO SET) (III) DETERIORATION OF STOCK (IV) CONSEQUENTIAL LOSSES 2. THE CLAIM BEFORE THE COMMISSION WAS THAT THE EARTHQUAKE WHICH IS ALLEGED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE ON 28-3-1999 HAD BEEN INSURED AGAINST AND THAT THE DAMAGES SUFFERED BY THE APPELLANT WERE THE DIRECT CONSEQUENCES OF THE EARTHQUAKE AND WITHIN THE INSURANCE POLICIES ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THE CLAIM BEFORE THE COMMISSION WAS FILED ON 26-12-2001 AFTER THE RESPONDENTS ULTIMATELY REJECTED THE APPELLANTS CLAIM IN RESPECT OF THREE OF THE HEADS NOTED ABOVE AND PARTIALLY ALLOWED ONLY ONE, NAMELY, FOR THE MACHINERY BREAKDOWN. THE COMMISSION BY ITS ORDER DATED 18-7-2002 REFUSED TO ENTERTAIN THE APPLICATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONTROVERSY COULD NOT BE RESOLVED IN A SUMMARY MANNER WITHOUT RECORDING ELABORATE EVIDENCE. THE APPELLANTS CASE BEFORE US WAS THAT THE NATIONAL COMMISSION WAS FULLY EMPOWERED TO DECIDE MATTERS WHICH REQUIRED ELABORATE EVIDENCE AND HAS RELIED UPON A DECISION OF THIS COURT IN J.J. MERCHANT (DR.) V. SHRINATH CHATURVEDI1 IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT DID NOT IN FACT REQUIRE ELABORATE EVIDENCE AS THE CLAIM COULD BE DECIDED ON THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD. 4. LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT INSURANCE COMPANY HAS STATED THAT THE DECISION IN J.J. MERCHANT1 DID NOT DEVIATE FROM THE PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED BY THIS COURT IN SYNCO INDUSTRIES V. STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR2 WHERE THIS COURT HAS SAID THAT WHERE DETAILED EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE TO BE LED TO PROVE THE CLAIM AND THEREAFTER TO PROVE THE DAMAGES, IT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH CASES TO BE HEARD AND DISPOSED OF IN THE SUMMARY JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION AND THAT THE MORE APPROPRIATE FORUM WAS THE CIVIL COURT. 5. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS IS CORRECT. IN J.J. MERCHANT1 THIS COURT HAS NOT DENIED THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION TO REFER THE COMPLAINANT TO THE CIVIL COURT FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF, IN CASE THE COMPLAINT INVOLVES COMPLICATED ISSUES REQUIRING RECORDING OF EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS WHICH MAY DELAY THE PROCEEDINGS (PARA 11 OF THE REPORT). 6. THE ONLY QUESTION TO BE DECIDED IS, WHEN SHOULD THIS JURISDICTION BE EXERCISED BY THE COMMISSION. 6. THE ONLY QUESTION TO BE DECIDED IS, WHEN SHOULD THIS JURISDICTION BE EXERCISED BY THE COMMISSION. IN OUR VIEW THE COMMISSION SHOULD ADDRESS ITSELF TO THE QUANTITY OF THE CLAIM, THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM, THE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED BOTH IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM AND THE DAMAGES SUFFERED AND THE NATURE OF THE LEGAL ISSUES BEFORE DECIDING THAT THE MATTER OUGHT TO BE DECIDED BY THE CIVIL COURTS IN THE REGULAR COURSE. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE CONSUMER FORUM HAS BEEN SET UP TO GRANT SPEEDY REMEDY. THE CONSUMER FORUMS HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ACHIEVING THIS OBJECT. THEY WERE NOT MEANT TO DUPLICATE THE CIVIL COURTS, AND SUBJECT THE LITIGANTS TO DELAYS WHICH HAVE BECOME ENDEMIC IN THE CIVIL COURTS. 7. ALTHOUGH THE REASON GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COMMISSION FOR REFERRING THE PRESENT MATTER TO THE CIVIL COURT IS CRYPTIC, WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE RECORDS FILED BEFORE US AND ARE SATISFIED THAT THE COMMISSIONS DECISION WAS CORRECT. THERE IS NO DOUBT HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM, THE LARGE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES CLAIMED, AND THE EXTENSIVE ENQUIRY INTO THE EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD BE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THIS IS NOT A MATTER TO BE DECIDED SUMMARILY AT ALL. 8. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL. HOWEVER, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT SINCE THE MATTER HAS BEEN PURSUED BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION AND THIS COURT AND THE MATTER HAS NOT BEEN ENTERTAINED BECAUSE OF THE DISCRETIONARY POWER NOT TO EXERCISE THE COMMISSIONS JURISDICTION, WE DIRECT THAT IN THE EVENT THE APPELLANT APPROACHES THE CIVIL COURT AS DIRECTED BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION, THE PERIOD SPENT BETWEEN THE FILING OF THE CLAIM BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION AND THE DISPOSAL OF THE MATTER TODAY BY US WILL BE EXCLUDED UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963. 9. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.