This Civil Ist appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.2.1998 passed by the learned Ist Addl.District Judge Jammu whereby the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed. The facts in brief leading to the filing of this appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit against the respondent-defendant insurance-company for recovery of Rs.1, 07,000 as compensation on the allegation that he had insured tanker bearing No. JKP-3411 with the defendant insurance company for cash value of Rs. 90000 under insurance policy No. 111700/24/1195/88 for the period commencing from 30.12.1988 to 29,12,1989. The said tanker suffered total loss in a fire incident in June 1989 in which the Driver and conductor of the tanker also perished. The plaintiff applied to the defendant, insurance company. for claiming the amount insured under the policy but that was not paid, hence the suit. 2. The suit of the plaintiff was contested by the defendant inter-alia on different grounds, including one that the plaintiff before filing the suit had lodged a complaint against the insurance company before the Divisional Forum but the same was dismissed for want of necessary evidence, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. From the pleading of the parties learned trial court framed the following issues:- 1- Whether the suit is time barred, if so how? OPD 2- Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Divisional Consumer Forum Jammu? OPD 3- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs. 50000 against the total; loss of the vehicle insured with the defendant company bearing No. JKP-3411 and Rs. 57000 as interest accrued upon the said amount.?OPP 4- Relief. 3. Learned trial court treated issue No. 2 as preliminary and after deciding the said issue in favour of the defendant, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, plaintiff has filed this appeal. Learned trial court has decided issue No. 2 and held the suit of the plaintiff not maintainable being of the view that after dismissal of the complaint by the Divisional Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, the remedy of approaching the civil court by way of a suit was barred. Learned trial court has decided issue No. 2 and held the suit of the plaintiff not maintainable being of the view that after dismissal of the complaint by the Divisional Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, the remedy of approaching the civil court by way of a suit was barred. Thus the important question arising for determination in this appeal is whether a person whose complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, (hereinafter called the Act), has been dismissed, is barred from filing a suit in a civil court for the same relief and on the same cause of action? 4. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sharma is that there is no such bar. He has argued that the provisions of Order 9 C.P.C.. do not apply to such suits in any manner nor there is any such bar contained under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, and therefore the jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be deemed to have been excluded in respect of a suit of a person who had earlier approached the Divisional Forum for the same remedy under the provisions of the Act. He has submitted that the plaintiff had approached the Divisional Forum for seeking the same remedy as sought by him in the suit before the trial court but had not pursued the same, the order of dismissal of his complaint passed by the Divisional Forum has not conclulsively adjudicated upon the right of the plaintiff to get compensation from the defendant and therefore the plaintiff is well within his rights to approach the civil court. 5. Per contra, Mr.Jamwal has argued that the forum created under the provisions of the Act is to be deemed to be an alternative forum to that of a civil court and once a person chooses a forum and his claim has been dismissed on the same cause of action, he cannot approach the civil court and the jurisdiction of the civil court in such a case by implication would be deemed to have been excluded. 6. Undisputedly the plaintiff filed a complaint u/s 9 of the Act for the same relief and on the same cause of action on which he had filed the civil suit, before the Divisional Forum Jammu. 6. Undisputedly the plaintiff filed a complaint u/s 9 of the Act for the same relief and on the same cause of action on which he had filed the civil suit, before the Divisional Forum Jammu. Learned Divisional Forum Jammu by its order dated 13.12.1993 dismissed the complaint in absence of the plaintiff-complainant in terms of the following order:- "The complainant also filed his rejoinder replying the defence taken by the non-applicant and the complainant was directed to lead evidence on 22.12.1992. But no evidence was led by the complainant in support of his case on as many as more than ten dates. It further appears from the interim orders that on most of the dates the complainant himself was not present to prosecute the complaint. Even today no witness has been produced by the complainant in support of his case. As such we are of the clear opinion that the complainant has no evidence with him in support of his case. Hence the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to records.?" 7. From the above order passed by the learned Divisional Forum it is manifest that the plaintiff-appellant had not pursued the remedy and had not prosecuted the complaint up to its logical end. Learned Divisional Forum has dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution though it has been observed therein that the complainant had failed to produce his evidence in support of his complaint. Would such dismissal of the complaint be a final adjudication of the rights of the parties particularly that of the complainant-plaintiff, so as to attract finality? 8. J&K Consumer Protection Act, 1987 was enacted to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers disputes and for matters connected therewith, as is the preamble of the Act. For resolution of the disputes between the consumers and the traders u/s 7 two forums have been created i.e. Divisional Forum and a State Commission. Where the value of the goods or service in respect of which compensation is claimed is less than Rs. 50000 a consumer is entitled to file a complaint before the Divisional Forum u/s 9of the Act, whereas if the value is more than Rs. 50000 complaint lies before the State Commission. Where the value of the goods or service in respect of which compensation is claimed is less than Rs. 50000 a consumer is entitled to file a complaint before the Divisional Forum u/s 9of the Act, whereas if the value is more than Rs. 50000 complaint lies before the State Commission. The Divisional Forum for trial of the complaints has to follow the procedure as laid down in sec.11 of the Act. The Divisional Forum is empowered to issue an order of such complaint to the opposite party directing him to take one or more of the following things u/s 12:- (a) to remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from the goods in question; (b) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect; (c) to return to the complainant the price, or as the case may be, the charges, paid by the complainant; (d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party. The order of the Divisional Forum is appealable u/s 13 and the appeal lies at the behest of an aggrieved person before the State Commission. 9. From the above-referred provision of the Act it appears that a simplified, inexpensive and speedy remedy has been provided for redressal of consumers grievances and finality in status has been conferred upon such order of the Divisional Forum u/s 18. Section 18 of the Act reads as under:- "Finality of orders-Every order of a Divisional Forum, or the State Commission shall if no appeal has been preferred against such order under the provisions of this Act, be final." 10. There is no provision under the Act, which expressly excludes or takes away the jurisdiction of the civil court for trial of the suits of civil nature. There is no provision under the Act, which expressly excludes or takes away the jurisdiction of the civil court for trial of the suits of civil nature. It also cannot be disputed that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure which lays down procedure for trial of the suits do not apply in entirety to the proceedings before the Divisional Forum except in respect of the following matters in view of the provisions contained in sec.11(4) of the Act which reads as under:- "11(4)-For the purpose of this section, the Divisional Forum shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure Samvat 1977 while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:- (i) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath; (ii) the discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence; (iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits; (iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source; (v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness; and (vi) any other matter which may be prescribed." 11. The provisions of Code of Civil Procedure can only be applied to the above said matters by the Divisional Forum to the proceedings before it. The provisions contained in Order 9 C.P.C. have not been made applicable to the proceedings under Act. The proceedings under the Act by no means of reasoning can be equated with a civil suit. This being the position of the proceedings under the Act, the question arises can the jurisdiction of the civil court vested u/s 9 C.P.C. be deemed to have been excluded by necessary implication. To answer the question the provisions contained in sec.3 of the Act need to be noticed. Same reads as under:- "3.Act not in derogation of any other law-The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force." 12. From the bare perusal of sec.3 it is crystal clear that the remedies provided under the Act are in addition to any other remedies provided under any other law. From the bare perusal of sec.3 it is crystal clear that the remedies provided under the Act are in addition to any other remedies provided under any other law. As the provisions of this Act are to be read in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, therefore, a consumer can file a civil suit for claiming compensation in a civil court under the provisions of ordinary civil law or he can choose remedy under the provisions of the Act. The remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the remedy provided by the civil law. It must be kept in mind that by using the expression "in addition" and "not in derogation of" the legislature while enacting Consumers Protection Act did not intend to create an alternative forum or remedy for a consumer. A consumer who chooses a remedy under the Act but does not pursue the same, therefore, would not be debarred from approaching the civil courts by way of a suit for the same remedy. Same would be the case in respect of a person whose complaint before the Divisional Forum gets dismissed. Even he would not be debarred from moving the civil court for the same relief and on the same cause of action. It is another thing that if he applies and gets his grievance redressed from the Divisional Forum under the provisions of the Act there may not be any occasion for him to move the civil court. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr.Jamwal has argued that in view of the provisions contained in sec.18 of the Act a consumer whose complaint has been dismissed would not be entitled to move the civil court because the order passed by the Divisional Forum under the Act is final. He has further argued that once finality is attached, bar to move the civil court would be created. 14. I am not in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent. The argument though attractive loses ground when it is examined in the light of other provisions of the Act. He has further argued that once finality is attached, bar to move the civil court would be created. 14. I am not in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent. The argument though attractive loses ground when it is examined in the light of other provisions of the Act. Sec.18 makes the orders of the Divisional Forum final in the sense that a person against whom an order u/s 12 of the Act for granting relief under clauses (a) to (d) has been passed, would be debarred from challenging the same except by way of an appeal. Finality attached by sec.18 to the orders passed by the Divisional Forum cannot, in any way, control or curtail the right of the consumer to approach a civil court for the same relief, which he has failed to obtain from the Divisional Forum or the State Commission. I am fortified in my view by referring to a Division Bench judgment of this court rendered in CIMA 29/97 on 12.5.1999.This judgment though does not deal with the question in issue in the present case yet implied support can be sought there from to the above said view. In that case the State Commission had awarded compensation in favour of the respondent. The appellant insurance-company went up in appeal and the Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the State Commission and further observed:- "In case the petitioner chooses he may initiate proceedings before the civil court for claiming appropriate relief in the matter." 15. Learned trial court therefore was not right in taking the view that the jurisdiction of the civil court stood excluded and therefore the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable. 16. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is accepted and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court is set aside and the matter remitted back for trial of the suit in accordance with law. No costs.