JUDGMENT : These two appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Aska in TMS No. 66 of 1997. The suit filed by the respondent no.1 as the plaintiff has been decreed as under:- (i) declaring the seizure of the bus by the appellant-defendant no.1 as illegal and the auction thereof as irregular; (ii) directing respondent-defendant no.5 auction-purchaser from the appellant-defendant no.2 (Orissa State Financial Corporation-OSFC) to restore the possession of the bus; (iii) directing the appellant-defendant no. 4 (National Insurance Company-Insurer) to pay a sum of Rs.1,33,380/-with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with quarterly rests from 23.10.1997; (iv) directing appellant-defendant nos. 1 to 3 (OSFC and officials) to pay damage to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-to the respondent-plaintiff within two months failing which to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum with quarterly rests till payment; (v) directing the appellant-defendant nos. 1 to 3 not to charge any interest or cost or monetary demand upon the respondent-plaintiff from the date of seizure till its restoration of possession to the respondent-plaintiff or the matter is regularized between respondent-plaintiff and the appellant (OSFC) as if the situation resumes back to the date of seizure of the bus; and (vi) directing that in the event of failure of respondent-defendant no. 5 to restore possession of the bus to the respondent-plaintiff, the defendant no. 2 would be adjusting a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-towards principal loan advanced to the plaintiff with further responsibility of dealing with respondent-defendant no.5 at their own risk and cost. One appeal (A) has been filed by the defendants nos. 1 to 3 i.e. Orissa State Financial Corporation and the other one (B) by the defendant no.4 i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd. Both these appeals having arisen from the same suit and as are concerned with the same judgment and decree, those have been heard together for their disposal as such. 2. For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court. 3. The plaintiff’s case is that he had taken loan of Rs.3,91,000/-from the defendant no. 1 (OSFC) for purchasing a passenger vehicle. The vehicle being purchased with the said financial assistance stood registered on 1.12.1986. 3. The plaintiff’s case is that he had taken loan of Rs.3,91,000/-from the defendant no. 1 (OSFC) for purchasing a passenger vehicle. The vehicle being purchased with the said financial assistance stood registered on 1.12.1986. As per the terms and conditions, the loan was to be repaid in monthly instalment as fixed as agreed upon. It is stated that the plaintiff continued to pay the same regularly till October, 1990. In that very month, unfortunately the vehicle met with an accident and thereafter when it had been parked by the side of the bus stand due to the flood situation, it got again submerged under water and because of the same the vehicle got completely damaged. The plaintiff then finding no other way applied for an additional flood loan and was sanctioned with a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, out of this amount, first of all a sum of Rs.40,000/-was adjusted towards the arrear instalments and the balance was spent for repair of the vehicle. Be that as it may, finally the vehicle with all efforts was made ready to run on the road in the month of October, 1991. But then again a problem arose with regard to the demand of the motor vehicle tax and non-issuance of permit for non-clearance of the said dues as demanded. So their ensued a legal battle. Ultimately, it ended by the order of the High Court in OJC No. 3812 of 1992 in view of the direction to the Regional Transport Officer to issue road permit. Being aware of all these, the defendant nos. 1 to 3 all of a sudden on 10.11.92 seized the bus and brought it to Berhampur without prior notice. So the plaintiff approached the High Court by filing a writ application. This Court by an order allowed one chance to the plaintiff to run the vehicle and clear the loan. But the defendants insisted payment of Rs.1,00,000/-for the purpose of release. Being not able to pay the same, the plaintiff again approached this Court by carrying a writ. In that proceeding, this Court restrained the sale of the bus to any 3rd person in case of payment of Rs.15,000/-by the present plaintiff. It is stated that the plaintiff when approached the defendants for receiving Rs.15,000/-, they demand of Rs.50,000/-. So the matter again came before this Court in OJC No. 9660 of 1992. In that proceeding, this Court restrained the sale of the bus to any 3rd person in case of payment of Rs.15,000/-by the present plaintiff. It is stated that the plaintiff when approached the defendants for receiving Rs.15,000/-, they demand of Rs.50,000/-. So the matter again came before this Court in OJC No. 9660 of 1992. This Court then directed for payment of Rs.30,000/-and asked the defendant nos. 1 to 3 (OSFC) to fix monthly instalment by rephasing the outstanding loan amount. It is next stated that the plaintiff could not come to deposit the amount as directed by the High Court due to serious illness of his father and on his return, the payment date as fixed had already expired. The defendant nos. 1 to 3 (OSFC) did not listen to the prayer thereafter. However, the matter came before the Disposal-Cum-Advisory Committee and the plaintiff was asked to be present before said Committee for taking a view in the matter. It is stated that on that date fixed, the plaintiff’s father died. So postponement of said date had been prayed for. However, on 14.1.94, the vehicle was sold by the public auction. The plaintiff again carried the matter to the High Court in OJC No. 750 of 1994. This Court directed the plaintiff to file a petition before the Managing Director, OSFC for its consideration in the matter of handing over the vehicle. The petition was filed but the vehicle was not delivered for the reason that the process was by then over as per law. Lastly, when the plaintiff approached against said delivery of vehicle by filing OJC No. 1157 of 1994 before this Court, the application was dismissed finding involvement of questions of fact needing adjudication and in view of availability of alternative remedy. 4. It is stated that the vehicle being registered was also duly insured with National Insurance Company, the defendant no. 4. After the damage in the accident and then because of the flood, there was intimation to the insurer. The plaintiff though demanded a sum of Rs.3,00.000/-from the insurers the same was not paid any heed to. It is next stated that being wrongly advised, the plaintiff after all these developments on 5.5.95 filed Consumer Dispute Case No. 270 of 1995 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ganjam at Berhampur. The said application was dismissed. The plaintiff though demanded a sum of Rs.3,00.000/-from the insurers the same was not paid any heed to. It is next stated that being wrongly advised, the plaintiff after all these developments on 5.5.95 filed Consumer Dispute Case No. 270 of 1995 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ganjam at Berhampur. The said application was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff then carried on appeal to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Cuttack wherein the financier (OSFC), the insurer (National Insurance Company) and others had been arraigned as respondents. The State Commission also dismissed the appeal. After loosing in those Forums, the present suit came to be filed claiming the following reliefs:- “i. for recovery of Rs.2,00,000/-by way of damages for illegal seizure, sale and disposal of his vehicle OSG-9060 and against defendant no.3. ii. for recovery of Rs.3,00,000/-as per terms and conditions of the Insurance and against defendant no.4. iii. for directing the said defendant no. 5 for restoration of the vehicle OSG-9060 to the plaintiff by holding that by the illegalities committed by the defendants 1 to 3, he has acquired no valid title to the said property; iv. for any other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Court deems proper; and v. for costs.” 5. The defendant nos. 1 to 3 (OSFC) contested the suit by filing written statement and they asserted that all action right from the seizure of the bus till auction have been held in accordance with law and the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for. Over and above, they had taken the stand that the suit is barred by limitation and lastly in view of the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in C.D. Appeal No. 368 of 1996, it had been contended the present suit to be barred under law and the issues thus cannot again be reagitated in the suit for decision. 6. The defendant no.4 (National Insurance Company) also contested the suit by filing the written statement asserting that it has no liability in the facts and circumstances of the case to pay any further amount to the plaintiff under the insurance policy. 7. On such rival pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:-“1. Is the suit maintainable ? 2. Is there any cause of action to file the suit? 3. Is the suit barred by limitation? 4. 7. On such rival pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:-“1. Is the suit maintainable ? 2. Is there any cause of action to file the suit? 3. Is the suit barred by limitation? 4. Whether the judgment in C.D. case No. 207/95 of the DCDRF, Berhampur and C.D. Appeal No. 368/96 of S.C.D.R.C. Orissa will operate as res judicata for this suit? 5. Whether the judgment in C.D. Case No. 207/95 of the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Berhampur and C.D. Appeal No. 368/96 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa will operate as resjudicata for this suit (for short as DCDRF & SCDRC respectively)? 6. Has this court jurisdiction try this suit? 7. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties as well as misjoinder of the cause of action? 8. Whether the seizure of the bus dated 10.11.92 by the O.S.F.C. is legal and whether the sale thereof in public auction is in accordance with the provisions of law. 9. Whether there is violation of principle of natural justice and deviation in following the procedure enshrined under the Act to seize the bus and to put the same into public auction. 10. Did the plaintiff suffer loss to the extent of rupees two lakhs due to the auction (illegal) of OSFC which will entitle him to damages to the extent of rupees two lakhs? 11. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get back the vehicle bearing No.OSG 9060 from the possession of D-5, the auction purchaser? 12. Whether the Insurance Policy of the bus bearing No. OSG 9060 of the plaintiff with D-4 was valid at the time of accident during the last week of October, 1990 and on 4.11.90 when the devastating flood flew through Aska? 13. Whether there was loss and damage of the bus by accident or by flood and if the damage to the bus was caused due to the flood then whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.3,00,000/-from D-4 as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? 14. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?” 8. Learned counsel for the parties at the outset contend for a decision of issue nos. 14. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?” 8. Learned counsel for the parties at the outset contend for a decision of issue nos. 4 and 5 which have been first taken up by the trial court and answered in favour of the plaintiff saying that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted in the facts and circumstances of the case and that the orders passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission does not stand in the way of such adjudication of the matter as raised and contested in the suit. And thereby to judge the sustainability of the said findings. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length in the matter of above two issues whose outcome wholly depend upon the appreciation of settled legal position and say as to how far the present suit as laid gets impacted thereby in further progressing for decision on the merit of the claim. 10. It’s well settled in law that every forum has its jurisdiction to address itself at the threshold to arrive at a conclusion with regard to its jurisdiction and to deal with such facts which are necessary to assume jurisdiction. The findings of the District Forum or the State Commission with regard to the status of any complainant as consumer and the grounds for the relief sought for are final under section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Those are not available to be re-adjudicated in a Civil Court. 11. In this connection let me refer to the decision reported in (1995) 3 SCC 383 ( AIR 1995 SC 1428 ) (Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute) wherein at para-15 it has been held: “By virtue of S.18 the procedure prescribed in S.13 applies to State Commission as well. From the above provisions, it is clear that the orders of the District Forum, State Commission and National Commission are final as declared in S.24 and cannot be questioned in a Civil Court. The issues decided by the said authorities under the Act cannot be reagitated in a Civil Court. From the above provisions, it is clear that the orders of the District Forum, State Commission and National Commission are final as declared in S.24 and cannot be questioned in a Civil Court. The issues decided by the said authorities under the Act cannot be reagitated in a Civil Court. The said provisions make it equally clear that the Forums created by the Act fall in the second category of Tribunals mentioned in R.V. Commissioner for Special Purposes of the Income-Tax (1888) 21 QBD 313, 319-which decision has been repeatedly affirmed and applied by this Court-which means that the Forums/Commissions under the Act have jurisdiction to determine whether the complainant before them is a ‘consumer’ and whether he has made out grounds for grant of relief. Even if the Forums/Commission decides the said questions wrongly, their orders made following the procedure prescribed in sub-sections (1) and (2) of S.13 cannot be questioned in a Civil Court-except of course, in situations pointed out in Dhulabhai v. State of M.P. (1968) 3 SCR 662 : AIR 1969 SC 78 . They can and must be questioned only in the manner provided by the Act.” (Emphasis supplied) From the above, it is very clear that the determination of any party as a consumer and as regards the justification or otherwise for the grant of relief are not available to be questioned again before a Civil Court. 12. In case of Basant Kumar vs. the United India Insurance Company and others: AIR 2003 Madhya Pradesh 203, the claimant had availed the remedy available under the Act and after having obtained an order in his favour granting compensation, he opted to have recourse for proceeding in arbitration as provided in the clause in the agreement as he was not satisfied with the sum awarded towards damage by the District Consumer Forum. 13. Referring to the provision of section 24 of the Act, it has been held:- “9. Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 attaches finality to the orders of District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission if no appeal has been preferred against such an order under the provisions of this Act. 13. Referring to the provision of section 24 of the Act, it has been held:- “9. Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 attaches finality to the orders of District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission if no appeal has been preferred against such an order under the provisions of this Act. It is not a case where lack of jurisdiction is alleged; petitioner has been benefited by the award made by the Consumer Forum; by enacting Section 23 any person if aggrieved by an order made by National Commission in exercise of its power conferred by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 21, may prefer an appeal against such order to the Supreme Court within a period of thirty days from the date of the order. The intention of the Act is to make the order final as provided in Section 24 of the Act. Section 24 of the Act read as under:- “24. Finality of orders: Every order of a District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission shall, if no appeal has been preferred against such order under the provisions of this Act, be final.” 10. An arbitrator cannot be allowed to sit over the order of the District Forum and State Commission particularly when the matter has been adjudicated on merits. In my opinion, considering the scheme of the Consumer Protection Act, petitioner cannot now avail the benefit of arbitration proceedings though initially it was open for him to choose the remedy before the arbitrator. Once the matter has been entertained and decided by the District Forum; award has been passed, it is not open for the petitioner to claim further amount by having recourse to the arbitration clause in the agreement. The order passed under Consumer Protection Act is final” (emphasis supplied) 14. In case of “Ms. Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. N.K. Modi; AIR 1997 SC 533 ”, the Apex Court held that the Consumer Protection Act provides an additional forum though the remedy of Arbitration Act is initially available. In order to relieve the consumers of the cumbersome arbitration proceedings or civil action, the Act has been enacted and the consumer Forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate on merit of claim in spite of availability of arbitration proceedings. The Apex Court held that matter need not be referred to the Arbitration and the State Commission should decide it on merits. In order to relieve the consumers of the cumbersome arbitration proceedings or civil action, the Act has been enacted and the consumer Forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate on merit of claim in spite of availability of arbitration proceedings. The Apex Court held that matter need not be referred to the Arbitration and the State Commission should decide it on merits. 15. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, the plaintiff after having failed in all the attempts to get the bus released having approached several times to this Court carrying writ applications including the last one vide OJC No. 1157/1994 which was not entertained on the ground of involvement of question of facts needing adjudication and because of availability of alternative remedy, next had approached District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ganjam in C.D. No. 207 of 1995. The said application being dismissed, the plaintiff challenged it by filing C.D. Appeal No.368 of 1996 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa at Cuttack. The appeal stood dismissed. The order has been admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.38=Ext. E. In that appeal both the National Insurance Company (defendant no.4 and the OSFC (defendant no.1) were parties and they contested the same denying their liability in the matter. The present in that Consumer dispute had prayed the following reliefs:- (i). direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation for damages jointly and severally; (ii). direct the O.P. No. 1 & 2 (National Insurance Co.) to pay the insurance claim amount with interest from the date of occurrence; (iii). direct the O.P. No. 3 & 4 (OSFC) to return the vehicle intact to the complainant; (iv). direct the opposite parties to pay the cost of the case; and (v). grant any such other relief or relieves as the Hon’ble District Forum deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case in the ends of justice. 16. The State Commission in para 4 of the order while dealing with the claim of this plaintiff vis-à-vis the delay have held: “xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx But in the present case far from showing any circumstances justifying the delay, we do not find any grain of truth in the allegation of the complainant that any damage was caused to this vehicle on account of any accident on 04.11.90. 17. 17. Next in para-5 of the order, coming to the liability of the OSFC, the defendant no.1 in the suit it has been held as under:- “5. The common case of the O.P. Nos. 3 & 4, on the other hand is that the complainant borrowed loan from the Corporation agreeing to repay the same in instalments with interest and that on the demand of O.P. No.4, he failed to clear up the outstanding loan amount. So the O.P. Nos. 3 and 4 took action U/S 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 as per the terms and condition of the agreement and hypothecation deed executed by him. The seizure of the Bus was made in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, and the Agreements executed between the parties. It is contended by these O.Ps. that the complainant cannot be considered to be a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is no maintainable against them and that the complaint is barred by limitation. So they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.” 18. With the above findings, the claim of this plaintiff was found to be without any merit and accordingly the plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed. It is pertinent to state here that the State Commission thus dismissed the claim of this plaintiff as laid on merit firstly finding that there remains no liability in the matter in so far as the defendant no.4 (National Insurance Co.) is concerned and secondly that the actions of defendant nos. 1 to 3 (OSFC) in the matter of seizure and auction have not been found in any way as legally objectionable and that those have not been established. Thus the defendant nos. 1 to 3 (OSFC) has also been exonerated from having any liability in the matter. 19. From the above, it is clearly seen that the State Commission has not dismissed the claim of the plaintiff as not entertainable either on the ground that the plaintiff is not a consumer or on the ground of limitation. But its decision is on the merit of the claim holding it to be not payable by the opposite parties therein i.e. either by the defendant nos.1 to 3 (OSFC) and the defendant no.4 (National Insurance Co.). 20. The trial court dealing with the above issue nos. But its decision is on the merit of the claim holding it to be not payable by the opposite parties therein i.e. either by the defendant nos.1 to 3 (OSFC) and the defendant no.4 (National Insurance Co.). 20. The trial court dealing with the above issue nos. 4 and has taken the view as per discussion as reproduced hereunder:- “With the hope of disposal of his dispute in the consumer court the plaintiff knocked the door of consumer forum but to his ill-luck he could not get any relief there. It is because of the fact that the relief sought for is not cognizable under the Consumer Protection Act and the dispute is not coming under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. If the plaintiff cannot got redress in the Consumer Forum then the question arises where he has to agitate his grievance and where such problem would be adjudicated. Secondly, should he be debarred to approach the Civil Court simply because the consumer forum did not listen to him holding that the dispute is not coming within the four corners of the Consumer Act to give relief to the plaintiff. Plaintiff is get relief. It is immaterial as to which Court or authority has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the plaintiff. Since alternative remedy exists and is available to the plaintiff and since he failed in one forum i.e. under Consumer Protection Act he will not be debarred to settle his dispute in the Civil Court. Plaintiff will not go without any remedy. Whatever the plaintiff did, he as per the advice of his Advocate. Hence he cannot be penalized for choosing a wrong forum due to the mistaken advice of his legal adviser. It is immaterial if the plaintiff has got merit in his claim or not. But the doors of the Civil Court is not closed for him. As such rightly he approached the Civil Court. The forum without framing issues considers regarding the deficiency of service without inviting oral evidence. The forum gives a finding relying upon the pleadings and documents while Sec. 9 of the C.P.C. gives a broad and wide jurisdiction to Civil Court not only to club oral evidence but also to test the veracity of such oral evidence and the Civil Court analyses the evidence on record issue wise and gives findings on each issue. The forum gives a finding relying upon the pleadings and documents while Sec. 9 of the C.P.C. gives a broad and wide jurisdiction to Civil Court not only to club oral evidence but also to test the veracity of such oral evidence and the Civil Court analyses the evidence on record issue wise and gives findings on each issue. Hence the findings of the Consumer Forum will not operate as resjudicata so as to keep the plaintiff armless and helpless to put forth his claim in the forum in which he ought to have filed the case. In a decision reported in State of Karnatak vs. Biswabharati House Building Cooperative Society and others 2—3 Vol.I CDJ Supreme Court at page so it has been held as follows;- “By reason of the provisions of section 3 of the Act, it is evident that remedies provided thereunder are not in derogation of those provided under other laws. The said Act supplements and not supplants the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts or other statutory authorities. The said Act provides for a further safeguard to the effect that in the event a complaint involves complicated issues requiring recording of evidence of experts, the complainant would be at liberty to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief. The right of the consumer to approach the Civil Court for necessary relief has, therefore, been provided under the Act itself.” In another decision reported in Synco Industries vs. State Bank of Bikanore & Jeypore and others; AIR 2002 SC (FB) page 568 it has been held that where the claim required detail evidence, the same cannot be entertained by commission but civil court is the proper remedy. Here in the instant case not only the plaintiff but also the defendants have led lengthy evidence consuming time months together in support of their respective cases which shows that the same could not have been possible under the consumer forum. Probably for that reason Hon’ble Court in its short order observed that the dispute involves several questions of fact which needs adjudication. That means adjudication of such disputed facts in the Civil Court but not under the consumer Forum. Probably for that reason Hon’ble Court in its short order observed that the dispute involves several questions of fact which needs adjudication. That means adjudication of such disputed facts in the Civil Court but not under the consumer Forum. Simply because the plaintiff chosed (sic) a wrong forum due to the mistaken advice of his Advocate he will not go without any remedy and the order of the consumer forum should not an obstacle for him to come to the Civil Court. Hence keeping in view to the principles decided in the above decisions and upon its application to the present case, I am of the opinion that the judgment of the Consumer Forums are not resjudicata to this case. In view of my above discussions this Court has jurisdiction to try this suit. These issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff.” 21. In the factual backdrop as regards the disposal of the Consumer Dispute appeal by the State Commission as stated in para-16 and in view of the reliefs claimed in the said dispute as stated in para-15 as asserted in the appeal, now let us advert to carefully find out the principles set at rest in those above decisions relied upon by the trial court in arriving at the above conclusion, based upon the same so as to say that how far those provide support to the above said view taken by the trial court and if those can sustain in the eye of law. In the case of Synco Industries (supra), the claimant had moved the Commission alleging deficiency in service against the Bank since it had frozen the sanctioned working facilities of the claimant without prior intimation. The claimant also sought for a direction for preparing the funding package so as to restart the claimant’s oil division with further prayer for waiver of interest, damage and other expenses. The National Commission disposed of the said claim holding it not fit for being tried under the Consumer Protection Act. The National Commission at that stage gave liberty to the claimant to approach the civil court or any other forum if so advised. The claimant however insisting upon continuing the adjudication of the claims on merit and grant of the reliefs claimed therein founded upon the facts and circumstances by the National Commission moved the Apex Court. The National Commission at that stage gave liberty to the claimant to approach the civil court or any other forum if so advised. The claimant however insisting upon continuing the adjudication of the claims on merit and grant of the reliefs claimed therein founded upon the facts and circumstances by the National Commission moved the Apex Court. In that connection, the Apex Court has said that in view of the rival case as projected since it require detail evidence to be led to prove the claim, damages etc, it cannot be heard and disposed of under the Act. So, the Apex Court confirmed the order of the National Commission holding it to have rightly passed so in granting the liberty to the claimant to move the civil court. The facts and circumstances of the cited case are completely distinguishable from the case in hand. In our case, finally the State Commission being moved by the plaintiff for adjudication of his claim and for grant of reliefs as noted above, has decided the appeal holding the plaintiff to be having failed to establish his claim. The plaintiff had moved the State Commission being unsuccessful before the District Forum and thus it prayed for disposal of the claim on merit. At no point of time he had prayed for withdrawal of the case from the State Commission nor sought for the liberty. Nor the State Commission has granted any such liberty. The plaintiff has thus accepted and submitted to the jurisdiction of the State Commission in deciding the dispute on merit and his claims being negated land the plaintiff being denied to be granted with any relief, has no more knocked the door of the higher forum as available under the Act nor any other proceeding has been levied to get the said order of the State Commission set aside. But the plaintiff now has filed the suit in the civil court for adjudication of the claims on merit afresh founded upon those facts and circumstances for grant of the reliefs as aforesaid. The question thus arises that can the plaintiff now turn around and again move the civil court saying that the Commission ought not to have so decided the dispute as it involved leading of lengthy evidence, their appreciation and final adjudication. The question thus arises that can the plaintiff now turn around and again move the civil court saying that the Commission ought not to have so decided the dispute as it involved leading of lengthy evidence, their appreciation and final adjudication. In my considered view, it cannot be so said and the order of the State Commission cannot be so avoided to say that it has no impact in the matter and does not in any way stand as legal hurdle on the path of the Civil Court for the adjudication of that very claim against those very parties on merit founded upon same factual and circumstantial settings and in their back drop. In that event the very purpose and objective of the legislation in creating the adjudicatory Forums under the Act would stand nugatory. It is true that the Forum and Commission created under the Consumer Protection Act supplement to the jurisdiction of the civil court or other statutory authority. The provision of section 3 of the Act is very clear that the remedies provided there under are not in derogation of those as provided under law. The said Act supplements and not supplants the jurisdiction of the civil courts or other statutory authority. The said Act provides for further safeguard to the effect that in the event a complaint involves complicated issues requiring recording of evidence of experts, the claimant would be at liberty to approach the civil court for appropriate relief. It’s clearly an option remaining with the claimant first and then with the Forum or Commission to so hold for not proceeding to decide the claim/dispute on that ground. The right of the consumer to approach the civil court for necessary relief, has therefore, been very much provided under the Act itself. The provisions of the said act are required to be interpreted as broadly as possible. It has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint despite the fact that other forums/courts would also have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the reliefs. The provisions of the said act are required to be interpreted as broadly as possible. It has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint despite the fact that other forums/courts would also have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the reliefs. (A) But from all these it cannot be deduced that a claimant having gone unsuccessful in the Forums under the Act holding his claim to be meritless and disentitling him from being granted with the reliefs as claimed, still can approach the civil court by filing the suit for adjudication of his claim on merit afresh on those very facts and circumstances forming foundation for the claim for grant of the same reliefs or reliefs of same nature. Here, the question is not resting on ousting of the jurisdiction but its because of the seal of finality being put upon the order of the Forums under the Act as provided in section 24 of the Act stairing on the face of the civil court or other statutory authorities not to proceed for adjudication of the same matter over and again land afresh. The intention of the legislature in creating the Forums and Commissions under the Act are undoubtedly as supplements but the same is certainly not that the jurisdiction of Forums and Commissions being invoked and the claim being disposed of on merit, the jurisdiction of normal or ordinary forums under the common law or other statutory forums are still invokable leading to multiplicity of proceedings which is against public policy and which is frowned upon. Next authoritative pronouncement in the case of State of Karnataka (supra) has been much banked upon by the trial court. In that case the constitutionality of the Consumer Protection Act was questioned. So the Apex Court looking at the objective behind the legislation has clearly expressed the view that the rights of the parties have adequately been safeguarded by reasons of the provisions of the said Act inasmuch as providing in an alternative system of consumer jurisdiction on summary trial; they are required to arrive at a conclusion based on reasons. Even when quantifying damages, they are required to make an attempt to serve the ends of justice aiming not only at recompensing the individual but also to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. Even when quantifying damages, they are required to make an attempt to serve the ends of justice aiming not only at recompensing the individual but also to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. Assignment of reasons excludes or at any rate minimizes the changes of arbitrariness and the higher forums created under the Act can test the correctness thereof. In that very case, the Apex Court has held that the provision relating to the power to approach the appellate court by a party aggrieved by a decision of the Forums/State Commissions as also the power of High Court and the Apex Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and Article 32 of the Apex Court apart from section 26 of the Act provide for adequate safeguards. Furthermore, primarily the jurisdiction of the Forums/Commissions is to grant damages. In the event a claimant feels that he would have a better and effective remedy in a civil court as he may have to seek for an order of injunction, he indisputably may file a suit in an appropriate civil court or may take recourse to some other remedies as provided for in other statutes. (A) For the aforesaid discussion and reasons, I am unable to understand as to how the above decisions come to the aid of the plaintiff in avoiding the order of the State Commission as to be having no value in the eye of law in further moving the civil court for redressal of selfsame grievances in claiming said relief by an adjudication afresh and as having no such legal impact, the order being not even the worth of the paper written on. The plaintiff here having very much pursed the litigation before the State Commission when has suffered from the decision in negating his case, has approached the civil court. As it appears, the trial court has failed to appreciate the ratios of the decision in correct prospective far from taking the legislative intent into consideration. The word ‘final’ finding place in section 24 of the Act cannot be so read only for the purpose of the dispute before the Forums and Commissions constituted under the Act but as not to be so accepted in the civil suit or other proceeding concerning the same subject matter claiming reliefs founded upon the same factual and circumstantial settings. The word ‘final’ finding place in section 24 of the Act cannot be so read only for the purpose of the dispute before the Forums and Commissions constituted under the Act but as not to be so accepted in the civil suit or other proceeding concerning the same subject matter claiming reliefs founded upon the same factual and circumstantial settings. The contrary being the view of the trial court as is clearly discernable, as also the conclusion of the trial court that the plaintiff has rightly approached the civil court are unsustainable in the eye of law and thus cannot be allowed to stand. In my considered view, the civil court’s jurisdiction in the matter of reopening the issues with regard to the claim of the plaintiff against the defendant no.4 (National Insurance Co. and the defendant nos. 1 to 3 (O.S.F.C.) stood foreclosed in view of the provision of section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act as those have already become final and no more questionable before the civil court in a suit for the same reliefs concerning same subject matter and based upon same facts and circumstances. The findings of the trial court on those issues are thus hereby set aside. In view of the finding that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the lis as laid, which has already been decided by the State Commission holding the plaintiff as not entitled to the claim as laid against the National Insurance Co., the defendant no.4 and O.S.F.C., the defendant nos. 1 to 3, there stands no further necessity to proceed to examine the here sustainability of the findings of the trial court on other issues touching the merit of the claim. 22. Resultantly, both the appeals stand allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court in TMS No. 66 of 1997 are hereby set aside. The plaintiff’s suit as laid stands dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to cost is passed.