ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition impugning the order dated 19.07.2019 passed by the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and others (for short ‘the Commission’), whereby application filed by the petitioner praying for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it involves complicated questions of law and fact, was dismissed. 2. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 2/complainant (for short ‘the Complainant’) filed complaint before the Commission claiming that huge loss of Rs. 7,30,76,036/- was suffered by it on account of flash floods in Srinagar in September 2014. In fact the floods had already hit the area where the showroom of the complainant was situated. By misleading, he got the insurance cover under ‘business shield policy’ from the petitioner company. Prior to that, the complainant already had the insurance policy from the National Insurance Company Limited covering the period from 07.05.2014 to 06.05.2015. In fact the material which has been placed on record by the petitioner before the Commission clearly established that the floods had hit the showroom of the complainant on 04.09.2014 at 11.15 a.m., whereas the policy from the petitioner company was taken on 04.09.2014 at 17.47 hrs. 3. While filing the claim, the complainant submitted that the date and time of loss was 06.09.2014 at 11.00 hrs, whereas in the entry in the Daily Dairy Register at the Police Station, Pantha Chowk, which is located close to the showroom of the petitioner, the floods had hit the area on 04.09.2014 at 11.15 a.m. He further submitted that in the investigation conducted by the Surveyor appointed by the petitioner/company, it has been established that the claim was fraudulent as prior to the insurance cover taken by the petitioner, the flood had already damaged the property of the complainant. The submission is that under these circumstances, it being the case of fraud on the face of it, examination and cross-examination of witnesses would be required with evidence in detail, hence, the complainant should be relegated to avail of its remedy before the Civil Court. In summary proceedings, complicated questions of law and fact cannot be adjudicated upon. It was further argued that judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in (2002) 2 SCC 1 titled Synco Industries vs State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and others was cited before the Commission. In summary proceedings, complicated questions of law and fact cannot be adjudicated upon. It was further argued that judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in (2002) 2 SCC 1 titled Synco Industries vs State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and others was cited before the Commission. However, the same has not been referred to. As against that the judgment in J. J. Merchant and others v. Shrimath Chaturvedi, (2002) 6 SCC 635 has been referred to and relied upon. The judgment in Synco Industries’ case was earlier in time. The same was not referred to in the subsequent judgment in JJ Merchants and other’s case (supra). Hence, keeping in view the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. S. K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589 , the earlier view was required to be followed. 4. It has been opined in Synco Industries’ case (supra) that in case the claim made by the complainant before the Commission was for crores of rupees for which obviously detailed evidence was required to be led, it would not be appropriate to decide the case in a summary fashion. Order passed by the National Consumers Redressal Commission relegating the party therein to approach the civil court was upheld. In the case in hand also the complainant has claimed Rs. 7,30,76,036/- The intention of the complainant to defraud the petitioner is evident from the fact that subsequent insurance policy was not taken by the complainant from the same company namely the National Insurance Company Limited from which it had earlier taken the insurance policy. Rather it approached the petitioner company. He further submitted that the date of loss submitted for claim to the National Insurance Company was intervening night of 05/06.09.2014, whereas different time and date has been mentioned while filing the claim with the petitioner-company. He further submitted that arguments in the application filed by the petitioner were heard on 20.12.2017 and the order was reserved. The same was released on 19.07.2019 and thereafter the Commission is taking up the matter on day to day basis as if there is great hurry. 5. He further submitted that arguments in the application filed by the petitioner were heard on 20.12.2017 and the order was reserved. The same was released on 19.07.2019 and thereafter the Commission is taking up the matter on day to day basis as if there is great hurry. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner claiming that it was a case of fraud has nothing to do as far as the jurisdiction of the Commission to decide the lis, is concerned. Whatever evidence is lead, the Commission, which is presided over by a retired Hon’ble Judge of this Court, will be appreciated and thereafter the order shall be passed. The parties before the Commission will have full opportunity to examine and cross-examine the witnesses. The Commission had rightly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in J. J. Merchant and others’ case (supra) which lays down the law in detail as compared to earlier one in Synco Industries’ case (supra) in which there was no discussion in detail. In fact no complicated questions of law and facts as such are involved. The complainant is in the process of leading its evidence. The petitioner can also lead its evidence and the petitioner has full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the complainant and thereafter lead its own evidence. The impugned order passed by the Commission does not call for any interference by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 7. Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant had taken a business shield policy from the petitioner. It has validity from 04.09.2014 to 03.09.2015. Complaint was filed before the Commission claiming loss of Rs. 7,30,76,036/-. It was alleged that the loss was suffered by the complainant on account of flash floods in Srinagar town on 06.09.2014 at 11.00 hrs. It was sought to be refuted by the petitioner claiming that the loss in fact had been caused prior thereto. In support of this plea, reference was sought to be placed as the entries in the Daily Dairy Register of the Police Station Pantha Chowk. It was sought to be refuted by the petitioner claiming that the loss in fact had been caused prior thereto. In support of this plea, reference was sought to be placed as the entries in the Daily Dairy Register of the Police Station Pantha Chowk. Two reports, of the Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessors, were also referred to wherein opinion expressed is that the claim was fraudulent as the policy was taken after the loss had already been suffered by the complainant. However, these facts as such may not be directly relevant in the case in hand at this stage except to the extent that on the basis of the aforesaid facts, the case sought to be set up by the petitioner is that it involves complicated questions of law and fact for which evidence in detail will be required to be led to prove the flood and also there would be lengthy examination and cross-examination of the witnesses. It was further claimed that such issues cannot be decided in summary proceedings. 8. Similar issue was considered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in J. J. Merchant and others’ case (supra) and the plea that the complicated questions of law and fact cannot be decided by the Consumer Forum is not of universal application. National Commission is headed by retired Judge of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, whereas the State Commission is headed by retired Judge of the High Court. They are competent enough to decide even the complicated questions of law and fact. The procedure prescribed under the Act for dealing with the complaint at different levels was discussed in detail in the aforesaid judgment. Relevant para Nos. 9 to 12 are extracted below: “9. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the present case involves complicated question of facts for which experts including doctors would be required to be examined and their cross-examination may be necessary, therefore also the National Commission ought to have directed the complainant to approach the Civil Court. For this purpose, the reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha and others [ (1995) 6 SCC 651 para 37] and it is submitted that in the present case complicated question of fact involving negligence of doctors is to be decided and, therefore, complainant should be directed to approach the Civil Court. In the aforesaid case, the Court rejected the said contention and observed thus: AIR 1996 SC 550 : 1995 AIR SCW 4463 Para 38 “....It has been urged that proceedings involving negligence in the matter of rendering services by a medical practitioner would raise complicated questions requiring evidence of experts to be recorded and that the procedure which is followed for determination of consumer disputes under the Act is summary in nature involving trial on the basis of affidavits and is not suitable for determination of complicated questions. It is no doubt true that sometimes complicated questions requiring recording of evidence of experts may arise in a complaint about deficiency in service based on the ground of negligence in rendering medical services by a medical practitioner; but this would not be so in all complaints about deficiency in rendering services by a medical practitioner. There may be cases which do not raise such complicated questions and the deficiency in service may be due to obvious faults which can be easily established such as removal of the wrong limb or the performance of an operation on the wrong patient or giving injection of a drug to which the patient is allergic without looking into the out-patient card containing the warning (as in Chin Keow v. Govt. of Malaysia ((1967) 1 WLR 813 (PC)) or use of wrong gas during the course of an anaesthetic or leaving inside the patient swabs or other items of operating equipment after surgery. One often reads about such incidents in the newspapers. The issues arising in the complaints in such cases can be speedily disposed of by the procedure that is being followed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies and there is no reason why complaints regarding deficiency in service in such cases should not be adjudicated by the Agencies under the Act. In complaints involving complicated issues requiring recording of evidence of experts, the complainant can be asked to approach the civil court for appropriate relief. Section 3 of the Act which prescribes, that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, preserves the right of the consumer to approach the civil court for necessary relief. Section 3 of the Act which prescribes, that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, preserves the right of the consumer to approach the civil court for necessary relief. We are, therefore, unable to hold that on the ground of composition of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies or on the ground of the procedure which is followed by the said Agencies for determining the issues arising before them, the service rendered by the medical practitioners are not intended to be included in the expression ‘service’ as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. …….” 10. In the aforesaid case, the Court was dealing with a contention that services rendered by the medical practitioners are not intended to be included in the expression “service” as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. That contention was negatived by the Court. Further from this decision, it is apparent that it is within the discretion of the Commission to ask the complainant to approach the civil court for appropriate relief in case complaint involves complicated issues requiring recording of evidence of experts, which may delay the proceeding. But the court has specifically held that issues arising in the complaints in such cases can be speedily disposed of by the procedure that is being followed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies. 11. Further, under the Act the National Commission is required to be headed by a retired Judge of this Court and the State Commission is required to be headed by a retired High Court Judge. They are competent to decide complicated issues of law or facts. Hence, it would not be proper to hold that in cases where negligence of experts is alleged, consumers should be directed to approach the Civil Court. 12. It was next contended that such complicated questions of facts cannot be decided in summary proceedings. In our view, this submission also requires to be rejected because under the Act, for summary or speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided. Therefore, merely because it is mentioned that Commission or Forum is required to have summary trial would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach the Civil Court. Therefore, merely because it is mentioned that Commission or Forum is required to have summary trial would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach the Civil Court. For trial to be just and reasonable long drawn delayed procedure, giving ample opportunity to the litigant to harass the aggrieved other side, is not necessary. It should be kept in mind that legislature has provided alternative, efficacious, simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers and that should not be curtailed on such ground. It would also be totally wrong assumption that because summary trial is provided, justice cannot be done when some questions of facts are required to be dealt with or decided. The Act provides sufficient safeguards.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. The view was subsequently followed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in CCI Chambers Cooperative Housing Society Limited v Development Credit Bank Limited, (2003) 7 SCC 233 . In the aforesaid judgment, the order passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Synco Industries’ case (supra) was also considered. It was observed therein that Fora have been created at different levels under the Act with an avowed object of providing summary and speedy justice in conformity with principles of natural justice. The jurisdiction conferred is in addition to the conventional courts. The object is to relieve the conventional courts of their ever increasing burden. Merely because evidence is required to be recorded and certain questions of law and fact need to be investigated, cannot be a ground for shutting the doors of any Forum under the Act to the person aggrieved. Relevant Paras thereof are extracted below: “6. It cannot be denied that fora at the national level, the State level and at the district level have been constituted under the Act with the avowed object of providing summary and speedy remedy in conformity with the principles of natural justices, taking care of such grievances as are amenable to the jurisdiction of the fora established under the Act. These fora have been established and conferred with the jurisdiction in addition to the conventional courts. The principal object sought to be achieved by establishing such fora is to relieve the conventional courts of their burden which is ever-increasing with the mounting arrears an whereat the disposal is delayed because of the complicated and detailed procedure which at times is accompanied by technicalities. The principal object sought to be achieved by establishing such fora is to relieve the conventional courts of their burden which is ever-increasing with the mounting arrears an whereat the disposal is delayed because of the complicated and detailed procedure which at times is accompanied by technicalities. Merely because recording of evidence is required, or some questions of fact and law arise which would need to be investigated and determined, cannot be a ground for shutting the doors of any forum under the Act to the person aggrieved. 7. In Indian Medical Assn. case this Court noticed the powers conferred on the several fora under the Act, the procedure applicable (including the exercise of some powers of the civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure having been made available to the fora under the Act) and held that the nature of averments made in the complaint is not by itself enough to arrive at a conclusion that the complaint raises such complicated questions as cannot be determined by NCDRC. It is only when the dispute arising for adjudication is such as would require recording of lengthy evidence not permissible within the scope of a summary enquiry that a forum under the Act may ask the complainant to approach the civil court. The fora made available under the Act are in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force and the jurisdiction of the conventional courts over such matters as are now cognizable under the Act has not been taken away. A three-Judge Bench of this Court recently in Dr. J.J Merchant case specifically dealt with the issue as to the guidelines which would determine the matter being appropriately dealt with by a forum under the Act or being left to be heard and decided by a civil court. This court notices that the fora under the Act are specifically empowered to follow such procedure which may not require more time or delay the proceedings. This court notices that the fora under the Act are specifically empowered to follow such procedure which may not require more time or delay the proceedings. A forum under the Act is entitled, and would be justified, in evolving a procedure of its own and also by effectively controlling the proceedings so as to do away with the need of a detailed and complicated trial and arrive at a just decision of the case by resorting to the principles of natural justice and following the procedure consistent with the principles thereof, also making use of such of the powers of the civil court as are conferred on it. The decisive test is not the complicated nature of the questions of fact and law arising for decision. The anvil on which entertainability of a complaint by a forum under the Act is to be determined is whether the questions, though complicated they may be, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry i.e. by doing away with the need of a detailed and complicated method of recording evidence. It has to be remembered that the fora under the Act at every level are headed by experienced persons. The National Commission is headed by a person who is or has been a judge of the Supreme Court. The State Commission is headed by a person who is or has been a judge of a High Court. Each District Forum is headed by a person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be a District judge. We do not think that mere complication either of facts or of law can be a ground for the denial of hearing by a forum under the Act. In Synco Industries case this Court upheld the order of NCDRC holding the complaint before it not a fit case to be tried under the Act and allowing liberty to the complainant to approach the civil court because this Court agreed with the opinion formed by the Commission that “very detailed evidence would have to be led, both the prove the claim and thereafter to prove the damages and expenses”. (SCC p. 2, para 3). The Court concluded that in any event it was “not an appropriate case to be heard and disposed of in a summary fashion.” 8. (SCC p. 2, para 3). The Court concluded that in any event it was “not an appropriate case to be heard and disposed of in a summary fashion.” 8. In Amar Jwala Paper Mills (India) case this Court set aside the order of NCDRC relegating a complainant to a civil court in spite of the complexity of the mater because the hearing had almost concluded before the Commission.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. The aforesaid judgments were again relied upon by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Punj Lloyd Limited vs Corporate Risks India Private Limited, (2009) 2 SCC 301 . In this case, Hon’ble the Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the National Commission whereby the complaint was dismissed at the threshold opining that it raised disputed questions of fact. As such a decision could be arrived at only after the party complete their pleadings. 11. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, the only inescapable conclusion which can be arrived at in the present case is that the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner regarding jurisdiction of the State Commission to go into the issues sought to be raised by the parties, is misconceived. In our opinion, the issues are not complicated, which cannot be decided on the basis of evidence led by the parties before the State Commission, which is headed by a retired Hon’ble Judge of this Court. Hence, the same deserves to be rejected. Ordered accordingly. 12. Another argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was regarding reliance by the State Commission on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in J. J. Merchant and others’ case (supra), as against the earlier judgment by a bench consisting of equal number of judges, taking a contrary view. The contention was that in such a situation the earlier judgment should have been followed. In support, reference was made to S. K. Kapoor’s case (supra). The argument raised deserves to be rejected. Even subsequent to the judgment in J. J. Merchant and others and Synco Industries cases (supra), the consistent opinion by Hon’ble the Supreme Court is that even complicated questions can be decided by the Fora created at different levels under the Act, as these are headed by retired Supreme Court Judge, High Court Judge and the District Judge. Even subsequent to the judgment in J. J. Merchant and others and Synco Industries cases (supra), the consistent opinion by Hon’ble the Supreme Court is that even complicated questions can be decided by the Fora created at different levels under the Act, as these are headed by retired Supreme Court Judge, High Court Judge and the District Judge. In such a situation latest judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court is to be followed, where the issue has been considered in detail. 13. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.