SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS group of appeals as also the connected writ petition all involve a common point of law of some importance namely the question as to whether the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has jurisdiction to decide a dispute relating to a monetary claim preferred by a member of the A. P. M. C. against a Co-operative Society or whether, under the A. P. M. C. Act it is the Disputes Redressal Committee of the A. P. M. C. that is invested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. The appellants before us as also the petitioners in the companion writ petition are the Tiptur Taluk Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Limited. The disputes in question go back to the year 1994 and the brief facts are that the Society was required to receive from the respondents the agricultural produce brought by them for sale to the market yard which was in turn put up for sale in keeping with the procedures prescribed by the A. P. M. C. The price having been fixed, the Society was required to pay the producers on that very date the amount realised irrespective of the fact that the buyer may pay up the amount after some time. The Society contends that the 2 per cent commission that it was entitled to was required to be paid by the buyer and that the respondent - purchasers were not required to pay anything for the services. We need to record here that this aspect has been seriously contested by the learned Advocates representing the respondent-purchasers because it is their contention that out of the aggregate realised from the buyer that the Society was entitled to retain the 2 per cent and pay the rest of the money to the purchasers and that effectively, this 2 per cent commission represented the consideration for the services. We refer to this factual aspect because something does turn on it. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the respondents they had supplied various quantities of copra to the Society for sale and that the Society did not make the payments to them. In one case it appears that the A. P. M. C. on the basis of a complaint directed the Society to make the payment but in the remaining cases there is no such direction. In one case it appears that the A. P. M. C. on the basis of a complaint directed the Society to make the payment but in the remaining cases there is no such direction. According to the claimants since the Society refused to pay them for the goods that had been delivered they were left with no option except to file their claims before the District Consumer Redressal Forum. Again, in the first of the cases though notice was issued to the Society it did not appear or contest the proceeding and the order was passed against the Society. In the remaining cases since the Society took up the contention that the claimants were not consumers and that consequently the Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the claims particularly in view of Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act which mandates that all disputes between a Society and its member are required to be referred to the Forum set up under the Co-operative Societies Act, the issue of jurisdiction was seriously contested and by a majority judgment, the Forum held that the claimants were consumers in so far as they had availed of the services of the Society and secondly that under the Consumer Protection Act that the Forum did have jurisdiction. One of the members dissented and held that the Forum did not have jurisdiction. The majority judgment was the subject matter of the writ petitions that were filed before the learned Single Judge, who in turn summarily disposed of the writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners namely the Society had their appellate remedies under S. 17 of the Consumer Protection Act and that consequently, the writ petitions were not maintainable. It is against this order that the present appeals have been preferred and the connected writ petition also concerns an identical issue. The appellants' learned Counsel has vehemently submitted before us that there is a complete bar to the claimants approaching the Consumer Forum in so far as according to her, this is a dispute that is squarely covered by the A. P. M. C. Act. Our attention was drawn to S. 84 of the Act which reads as follows :-"s. 84. The appellants' learned Counsel has vehemently submitted before us that there is a complete bar to the claimants approaching the Consumer Forum in so far as according to her, this is a dispute that is squarely covered by the A. P. M. C. Act. Our attention was drawn to S. 84 of the Act which reads as follows :-"s. 84. Provision for settlement of disputes - (1) For the purpose of settling disputes between "producers, buyers and sellers, or their agents, including any disputes regarding the quality or weight of, or payment for, any agricultural produce, or any matter in relation to the regulation of marketing of agricultural produce in the market area, the market committee of that area shall appoint a panel of arbitrators periodically consisting of agriculturists, traders and commission agents, and constitute a Disputes committee from among its members in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) Rules shall be made regulating the procedure for settlement of disputes, the authority or authorities for settling the disputes and appeals from the decisions of such authorities, payment of fees by parties for settlement of disputes, be an arbitrator or arbitrators and all other matters connected with such settlement including the extent to which the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940, shall be applicable to arbitrations under this section. (3) Subject to the rules made under sub-section (2), a market committee may make bye-laws regulating the details in respect of settlement of disputes relating to transactions in notified agricultural produce in the market area. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be entertained by any Court in respect of disputes referred to in sub-section (1), without the previous sanction of the market committee. " ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel submitted that in the first instance S. 84 is wide enough to cover all disputes of whatsoever nature that take place within the framework of the working of the market yard irrespective of who the contesting parties are. An emphasis was laid on the fact that the Section makes adequate provision for redressal of these disputes in so far as the rules provide for the setting up of a Committee of Arbitrators who in turn are required to examine the dispute and decide on it. An emphasis was laid on the fact that the Section makes adequate provision for redressal of these disputes in so far as the rules provide for the setting up of a Committee of Arbitrators who in turn are required to examine the dispute and decide on it. A lot of emphasis was laid on the fact that the Section contains a non obstante clause which specifies that no Civil Court shall entertain any proceeding in relation to any such dispute. The submission canvassed was that not only does the Act prescribe for a complete redressal procedure in the event of grievances but secondly that there is a reverse provision which contemplates the decision of all such disputes only by the Committee set up the A. P. M. C. Furthermore, in order to ensure that the parties do not wrongly approach the Civil Court the section very specifically debars the Civil Court entertaining any such dispute notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. Learned Counsel submitted that it is not so much the question as to whether the claimants can answer to the definition of consumers or not because even assuming for purposes of argument that they contend that they must be regarded as consumers that the law still bars jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum and that consequently, the order passed by the Forum holding that it had jurisdiction was erroneous and is liable to be quashed. The further submission canvassed was that the learned single Judge was in error in having mechanically redirected the parties to the appellate forum when it was incumbent on the part of the High Court to have examined the jurisdiction issue and if the appellants were right, to have then redirected the claimants to the A. P. M. C. Committee. ( 4 ) AS against this position, the respondents' learned Counsel vehemently defended the two orders because it was their contention that as consumers who had availed of the services of the Society for which 2 per cent was deducted out of the price realised that they would come squarely within the ambit of Section 2 (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which defines the ambit and scope of the expression 'consumer'. Though this point was argued elaborately before us, we refrain from recording any finding on this issue because we find that it is wholly irrelevant for the reason that S. 84 of the A. M. P. C. Act very clearly mandates that there shall be a bar on any Civil Court entertaining a dispute of this type. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum will have to be treated as a body analogous to a Civil Court as has been defined under the Act and in our considered view, the bar prescribed under S. 84 would squarely cover this Forum also. That being the position, irrespective of whether the claimants answer to the definition of consumers or not even if one were to take the highest possible position that the respondents are right in their contention that they would answer to this definition, the Forum would still not have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the dispute and consequently, we do not need to record any finding with regard to that issue. ( 5 ) AN interesting submission was canvassed by the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents who contended that they had approached the Consumer Forum for a special reason because according to them, individual farmers or producers are effectively small and powerless persons in the face of an apex body like the A. P. M. C. or for that matter the appellants who are a relatively large and powerful Society. The submission canvassed at the Bar was that in this background the claimants despite complaints to the A. P. M. C. virtually got nowhere because even in one of the cases where the Society was directed to make a payment, they still refused to do so and that consequently, the claimants had no option except to approach the Consumer Redressal Forum. The allied submission was that between the A. P. M. C. and the Society that there would be a level of bias even as far as the Committee is concerned and that the claimants were apprehensive of the fact that they would not get a fair deal. The allied submission was that between the A. P. M. C. and the Society that there would be a level of bias even as far as the Committee is concerned and that the claimants were apprehensive of the fact that they would not get a fair deal. The main contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents and one which requires very serious consideration is that fact that they submitted that if the aggrieved party has options that the choice must be left to the party concerned and the submission was that if between the A. P. M. C. Committee, the Civil Court and the Consumer Forum if the claimants felt confident that they would get a fair and expeditious decision from the Consumer Forum that the Court ought to interfere with their choice. The added submission canvassed was that despite service of notice on the respondents they did not appear, that the Forum exercised jurisdiction and decided one of the cases and that it was only at a belated stage that the issue of jurisdiction was raised and that too before the appellate forum. The contention was that if the respondents have not objected to the jurisdiction at the earliest point of time that they would be estopped in law from doing so and that too after 8 or 9 years of litigation and that consequently, this is not a case in which any nterference was called for. ( 6 ) WE need to mention here that under normal circumstances we would have straightway upheld both these submissions particularly since the respondents' learned Counsel cited a string of judgments both of this Court and the Supreme Court pointing out that even where alternative remedies are available that the Forum can still exercise its jurisdiction. It is true that different views have been expressed in these decisions but the consensus is to the effect that since a Consumer Redressal Forum has been set up under the law for the special purpose of redressing expeditiously the grievances of consumers, that a party opting to approach that Forum should not be prevented from doing so. It is true that different views have been expressed in these decisions but the consensus is to the effect that since a Consumer Redressal Forum has been set up under the law for the special purpose of redressing expeditiously the grievances of consumers, that a party opting to approach that Forum should not be prevented from doing so. Unfortunately, in none of the decisions do the Courts deal with a case under the A. P. M. C. Act because in none of these statutes was there an express bar to any Court or authority other than the one set up under the A. P. M. C. Act to permit to exercise of jurisdiction in respect of Disputes Redressal. This is an aspect of the law which distinguishes the present case from all the other ones and it is only because of this specific reason that we are required to uphold the appellants' contention that the Forum would not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the present dispute. ( 7 ) IT is true that the appellants ought to have appeared before the Forum at the earliest point of time and if according to them, there was a legal bar they ought to have brought it to the notice of the Forum. They have done everything other than this and we do see considerable substance in the very strong and fervent plea advanced on behalf of the respondents that if after nine years of litigation they have to be redirected to the A. P. M. C. Committee that the consequences would be extremely harsh to them because it is their case that in the first instance he have been wrongly deprived of their money, that undoubtedly the value of the rupee has been falling all these years but more importantly, for a small farmer whose economics is fragile the non-receipt of a substantial amount which is a virtual working capital would seriously handicap him. All that we can say is that there is substance in this grievance particularly because the respondents did not raise the issue relating to the A. P. M. C. Act bar at any time during the earlier litigation and they would therefore be squarely liable for the entire period of delay and in the event of the applicants succeeding in their claim, the Committee would undoubtedly, have to bear in mind this aspect of the case and ensure that they are duly compensated also in terms of adequately high interest for the interim period. ( 8 ) ONE of the submissions canvassed before us was that effectively the respondents are being referred to an Arbitration Forum set up under the A. P. M. C. Act and our attention was drawn to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2000 SC 2008 wherein the Supreme Court upheld the position that a complaint to the Consumer Forum was tenable even if there was a provision for an arbitration clause the reason being that this is a remedy available in addition to the other normal remedies and obviously the Supreme Court upheld the position that where a party has chosen the most expeditious forum that the Court will not debar the party. It was submitted before us on the basis of this decision that the present position being analogous in law and since the Consumer Forum has already exercised jurisdiction that this Court should refrain from interfering at this late stage. This is again an aspect of the law which the Court would normally have upheld except for the fact that the consequences would be extremely disastrous in so far as it would mean that the Consumer Forum would have proceeded to adjudicate on the dispute dehors the fact that in law there was a bar to its exercising jurisdiction and at the end of this long exercise, even if the respondents had succeeded they would have been left with an unenforceable order as it would have been legally stillborn. ( 9 ) WE have also taken cognizance of another aspect of the law namely the legislative intent behind confining all disputes to the A. P. M. C. The reason for this is obvious because the decision would be quick but more importantly the procedures involved would be familiar and above all, that Committee would be also familiar with the nature and scope of these transactions and would be far more suitable to adjudicate the dispute. Lastly, there is also the cost factor which is of consequence along with the aspect of time and from both angles the parties would be immensely better off before the A. P. M. C. Committee. ( 10 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid position, it is necessary to set aside the impugned orders passed by the Forum as also the order passed by the learned single Judge and to direct the A. P. M. C. , Tiptur to set up the Committee as contemplated under S. 84 of the Act within an outer limit of six weeks from today. In order to conserve time, we direct both the contesting parties to keep in touch with the A. P. M. C. and to appear before the Committee on a date that will be set by it which will be not later than fifteen days after which the Committee is set up. We also need to issue certain directions with regard to the timeframe etc. because we do not desire that this nine year old litigation should continue for another decade. The Committee shall also give an opportunity to the parties to produce whatever evidence they so desire and to make their submissions and the Committee shall ensure that the dispute is resolved strictly in keeping with the procedure prescribed by law. In view of the submissions canvassed before us, we need to bring it to the notice of the A. P. M. C. and the Committee that no cause for grievance should arise. Within the framework of the Act, the A. P. M. C. does have the power to enforce the decisions of the Committee and in the event of the decision being in favour of the respondents who are the claimants the A. P. M. C. shall ensure that the decision is given effect to. Within the framework of the Act, the A. P. M. C. does have the power to enforce the decisions of the Committee and in the event of the decision being in favour of the respondents who are the claimants the A. P. M. C. shall ensure that the decision is given effect to. We have not said a single word with regard to the merits of the case even though the learned Counsel representing the parties had made several references to the record and to the facts, the reason being that we do not desire to benefit or prejudice either of the parties to the dispute. With these directions, the appeals and the writ petition which are partially allowed to stand disposed of. No order as to costs. We clarify, that the question of the bar of limitation will not arise as far as the reference to the A. P. M. C. Committee is concerned because it is well settled law that since the claimants were agitating their claim before a legal forum all these years that the entire period will be excluded. We also direct that the Committee shall complete the hearing and indicate its decision on a top priority basis but in any event within a period of six months from the date of appointment of the Committee. Order accordingly.