JUDGMENT : SUDHIR AGARWAL AND RAJEEV MISRA, JJ. 1. This writ petition has been filed assailing an order dated 6th July 2019 passed by District Consumer Forum, Firozabad (hereinafter referred to as "DCF") holding that it has jurisdiction to entertain claim of a "Fanner" whose crop (potatoes in the present case) kept for storage in the petitioners' cold storage had damaged and he is claiming compensation. 2. Though order passed by DCF is appealable under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "Central Act, 1986") before "State Commission" but learned Counsel for petitioners submits that he has challenged the very jurisdiction, thus alternative remedy would not bar this writ petition. 3. Since a pure question of law has been raised, with the consent of parties, we proceed to hear and decide this matter without relegating petitioner to avail statutory alternative remedy and also considering the fact that learned Standing Counsel has not opted and requested for time to file any counter-affidavit but has requested this Court to decide this matter at this very stage. 4. Contention of the petitioners is that they are running a cold storage, namely, M/s. Chakor Cold Storage situate at Saipuri Road Aroon, Police Station, Sirsa Ganj, District Firozabad under a licence obtained under Uttar Pradesh Regulation Cold Storages Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'U.P. Act, 1976') and if there is any damage to the crop stored by "Farmer" in the said cold storage, remedy of compensation has been provided under section 24 of U.P. Act, 1976 by raising a dispute before "Licensing Authority" and, thereafter, a further remedy is provided before a "Tribunal" constituted under section 35. U.P. Act 1976 is a special Act, therefore, it is contended that DCF under Central Act, 1986 has no jurisdiction. Reliance in this regard is placed on Supreme Court's Judgment in General Manager, Telecom v. M. Krishnan and another 2009 (77) ALR 302 (SC) : 2009 (82) AIC 207 . It is also argued that service of storage of crop in cold storage for its protection is not included in the definition of "service" under section 2(o) and "Farmer" is not a "Consumer" as defined under section 2(d) of Central Act, 1986, therefore, D.C.F. in the present case has no jurisdiction. It is also argued that service of storage of crop in cold storage for its protection is not included in the definition of "service" under section 2(o) and "Farmer" is not a "Consumer" as defined under section 2(d) of Central Act, 1986, therefore, D.C.F. in the present case has no jurisdiction. In support of above, reliance is placed on Supreme Court's Judgment in Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha 2009 (77) ALR 473 (SC) : 2009 (33) AIC 202. 5. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that U.P. Act, 1976, which is a Provincial enactment, has not been given any Presidential assent, hence cannot override provisions of Central Act, 1986, which is a Parliamentary enactment. He submits that cold storage renders service of storage of crop and charge fee, therefore, a 'Farmer' whose crop is stored in cold storage is a "Consumer", to him, petitioner is rendering a service. If any deficiency in service is found, "Consumer", i.e., Farmer has remedy of claiming damages of compensation under Central Act, 1986 and mere fact that a Provincial enactment i.e., U.P. Act, 1976 is also available, will not denude jurisdiction to DCF under Central Act, 1986. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the record. U.P. Act, 1976 was enacted to provide for licensing supervision and control of cold storages in State of U.P. and for matters connected therewith. Statement of objects and reasons clearly provides that Provincial Legislature marked development in cold storage industries in last the decade prior to 1976 which had shown establishment of large number of cold storages in private sector across the State of U.P., particularly in and around the areas which have abundance growth of potato crop. To ensure efficient maintenance of cold storages and to remove hardship to Agricultural Producers, proper control and regulation of the cold storage business was considered necessary in public interest. U.P. Act, 1976 received assent of the Governor on April 16, 1976, published in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 19th April, 1976 and has been given effect from September 20, 1975. 7. To ensure efficient maintenance of cold storages and to remove hardship to Agricultural Producers, proper control and regulation of the cold storage business was considered necessary in public interest. U.P. Act, 1976 received assent of the Governor on April 16, 1976, published in U.P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 19th April, 1976 and has been given effect from September 20, 1975. 7. Section 2(c) defines "cold storage"; section 2(d) defines "Hirer"; section 2(e) defines "licence"; and, section 2(f) defines "licensee", which are quoted here in below: "(c) "cold storage" means an enclosed chamber insulated and mechanically cooled by refrigeration machinery to provide refrigerated condition to agricultural produce stored therein, but does not include refrigerated cabinets and chilling plants having a capacity of less than 100 cubic metres; (d) "hirer" means a person who on payment hires space in a cold storage for storing agricultural produce; (e) "licence" means a licence granted under this Act; (f) "licensee" means any person to whom a licence is granted tinder this Act;" 8. Section 5 of U.P. Act, 1976 imposes a restriction upon any person to carry on business of storing any agricultural produce in cold storage except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of licence granted under U.P. Act, 1976. Section 6 talks of the procedure for grant of licence and section 7 provides for terms and renewal of licence. Chapter IV which contains sections 12 to 28 deals with rights and duties of licensee. Section 12 says that licensee shall take care of such cold storage as a man of ordinary prudence would take of his own goods under similar circumstances and objections. Section 24 talks of compensation for loss, destruction etc. of the goods stored in cold storage which reads as under: "24. Compensation for loss, destruction, etc.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act the licensee shall be liable to pay to the hirer compensation for every loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of the goods stored in his cold storage cause by the negligence, misconduct or default on the part of such licensee." 9. Section 25 of U.P. Act, 1976 says that a dispute with regard to compensation under section 24 shall be referred to Licensing Officer, who shall decide the matter and his order shall be final and if appeal is filed, subject to result of appeal. 10. Section 25 of U.P. Act, 1976 says that a dispute with regard to compensation under section 24 shall be referred to Licensing Officer, who shall decide the matter and his order shall be final and if appeal is filed, subject to result of appeal. 10. Appeal against order of Licensing Officer is provided under section 36. Section 43 gives overriding power to provisions of U.P. Act, 1976, which reads as under: "43. Effect of Acts and Rules etc. inconsistent with other enactments and instruments.--The provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act, or in any contract, or in any other instruments having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act." 11. Admittedly, Central Act, 1986 was not in existence when U.P. Act, 1976 was enacted. Moreover, U.P. Act, 1976 is a Provincial enactment and has not received assent of President while Central Act, 1986 is a Parliamentary enactment. The effect of section 43 of U.P. Act, 1976, therefore, in view of provisions contained in Article 224 will not override the provisions of Central Act, 1986. The provisions of Central Act, 1986 are wider, provided a more deeper judicial scrutiny of a dispute with regard to deficiency of service and, therefore, at the best it can be said that both the remedies were available to Farmer and where more than one remedy are available, the incumbent is entitled his right to election and avail any of such remedies. It cannot be said that DCF has no jurisdiction in the matter. 12. We have to examine the matter in the light of Article 254 of the Constitution of India and also the fact as to which statute can be said to be special statute. 13. U.P. Act, 1976 is an Act to govern and control matters relating to cold storages. The issue with regard to deficiency in service and reimbursement of a Farmer due to any loss by cold storages committing deficiency in service is an incidental matter covered by U.P. Act, 1976. 13. U.P. Act, 1976 is an Act to govern and control matters relating to cold storages. The issue with regard to deficiency in service and reimbursement of a Farmer due to any loss by cold storages committing deficiency in service is an incidental matter covered by U.P. Act, 1976. However, Central Act, 1986 is basically to take care of a Consumer who has made with a deficiency of service and his right to claim damages/compensation of adequate amount which has to be determined by a statutory adjudicatory forum which is a complete hierarchy at District level, State level, Central level and upto Supreme Court. Therefore, on the later aspect, i.e., deficiency in service and adjudicatory forum U.P. Act, 1976 is not a special Act but Central Act, 1986 is an special Act and shall over-ride. 14. Learned Counsel for petitioners placed reliance on a Single Judge judgment of this Court of Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No. 557 (MS) of 2009, M/s. Behari Colds (P) Ltd. v. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and others), decided on 21.8.2009 wherein it is held that if two remedies are available the incumbent cannot avail both of them. 15. We find that learned Single Judge has misconstrued the Supreme Court's judgment in Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council AIR 1995 SC 1384 , and, therefore, aforesaid judgment cannot be said to be correct. When a specific right is created in a statute and the same statute provides an adjudicatory forum also, the aggrieved person may claim such right before forum under the same statute and not elsewhere but here right to claim damages and compensation has been conferred upon aggrieved person or the Farmer, as the case may be, under both statutes, i.e., U.P. Act, 1976 and Central Act, 1986, therefore, the right to claim damages was conferred by both statutes and forums for adjudication was also provided therein, hence it is open to person concerned to elect the forum where he wants to have his right adjudicated. 16. We, therefore, find no error in the order passed by District Consumer Forum on the ground of jurisdiction. Writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed accordingly.