ORDER Mr. Surinder Sarup (Retd.) President: This order will dispose of both the above mentioned complaints as they relate to the same parties i.e. the complainant as well as the opposite parties and common questions of facts and law arise in both these cases. 2. At the outset, our attention has been drawn by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties on the basis of the preliminary objections taken in the reply to the effect that although an earlier complaint was admittedly filed on the same cause of action before Haryana State Commission, Chandigarh, and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 4.5.1999, the affidavit filed in support of the present complaint by the complainant Shri Rakesh Goel has categorically deposed on oath that due to the alleged mishandling of the machinery of the cold storage by the opposite parties, resulting in damage to his bags of Potato seeds stored there for consideration, a complaint is also pending before the President, State Consumer Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh. This affidavit was sworn on 5.7.2000. 3. During the pendency of the proceedings in both these cases before us, a certificate purported to have been issued by the Secretary of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Chandigarh was placed on record indicating that complaint No. 1 of 1988 titled as Rakesh goel etc. v. M/s. Kisan Cold Storage was filed before that Commission on 2.1.1999 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 4.5.1999. Not only that Xerox copy of a certified copy of order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in respect of a complaint hearing original complaint No. 22 of 1998 between the same parties, decided on 22.2.1999 has also been placed on record. As a result of the said order, the complaint was ordered to be returned to the complainant to be filed before the appropriate. For holding that the Punjab State Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is not disputed before us that the cause of action in respect of the complaints filed both before the State Commission, Haryana as well as the State Commission, Punjab, was the same as the one arising in the present complaints. It is in this context that the objection taken by the opposite parties and referred to above becomes relevant for the purpose of the decision of these complaints. It is in this context that the objection taken by the opposite parties and referred to above becomes relevant for the purpose of the decision of these complaints. Referring to the affidavit of the complainant Shri Rakesh Goel, which is on record and was sworm by him on 5.7.2000, we find that he has categorically deposed in para 3 thereof that his complaint is also pending before the President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Chandigarh. This clearly goes to show that the complainant is guilty of mis-stating facts before us. 4. The matter does not rest there. The contents of the complaints when read as a whole, clearly go to show that bags of Potato seeds alleged to have been kept in the Cold Storage of the opposite parties for consideration, were meant for sale i.e. a commercial purpose. This is further made clear in the reply of the opposite parties that the complainant has stored potatoes in the cold storage for the purpose of business and trade. Not only that, the opposite parties have placed on record a copy of the judgment of the Court of District Judge, Una, dated 22.3.1999, arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,40,147/- on account of arrears of rent for storage of goods (Potatoes) in the Cold store of the plaintiff with interest and other charges. This civil suit was at the instance of the opposite parties i.e. the sard Kisan Cold Storage and the defendant in that suit was the present complainant Shri Rakesh Goel. This document is Annexure R-2 on the record. It is clear from the operative part of this judgment that the suit was decreed as prayed in the sum of Rs. 3,40,147/- with costs. Therefore, the preliminary objections taken in the reply of the opposite parties that the remedy, if at all, lies in the Civil Court is not without force. 5. As a result of the above discussion, we find that the complainant in both the complaints has not come to this Commission with clean hands inasmuch as he has not stated that complete and correct facts of the case before us. Secondly, the pleadings in this complaint disclose that the transaction by way of storage for consideration in the Cold store of the opposite parties was commercial in nature, notwithstanding the allegation of deficiency in service on their part as per the complaint. Secondly, the pleadings in this complaint disclose that the transaction by way of storage for consideration in the Cold store of the opposite parties was commercial in nature, notwithstanding the allegation of deficiency in service on their part as per the complaint. Lastly, it is clear from the pleadings that the remedy, if any, for the complainant lies before the Civil Court and it is not a fit case to be adjudicated upon by the Consumer for resolving a dispute as it is a complicated and disputed questions of facts requiring elaborate evidence, which is only within the domain and jurisdiction of a Court. 6. For the reasons recorded above, both these complaints are dismissed with liberty reserved to the complainant to avail of his remedy before the court/Forum having jurisdiction in the matter. It is also made clear that the time taken in pursuing the present two complainants before this Commission, shall not act as a bar of limitation in that eventuality.