PER JUSTICE R.C.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Aggrieved by the dismissal of its complaints no. 14 & 15/2006 by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide orders dated 20.08.2009 & 28.08.2009, the original complainants S.R. Industries and M/s Shri Nath Traders have filed the present appeals. By the impugned orders the State Commission has dismissed the complaints holding that the issues involved in the case were such that cannot be answered by a consumer fora in exercise of summary jurisdiction and can appropriately form the subject matter of trial by a competent civil court. In nutshell, complaints filed by the complainants were for recovery of sum of Rs.37,08,000/- & 35,58,000/- with certain other amounts on account of the loss suffered to certain commodities of the complainants which were stored in the cold storage of the respondent and which were destroyed in a devastating fire which took place in the cold storage on 19.02.2005. On being noticed, complaint was resisted by the respondent interalia raising objections about the maintainability of the complaints on the ground that complainants were not consumer within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because even if it is assumed that complainant had availed services of the respondent, the same was purely for commercial purpose. It was also contended that the complaints involved complicated issues of fact and law which cannot be answered by a consumer fora in exercise of its summary jurisdiction. On a consideration of the respective pleas, the State Commission framed a number of issues which in the opinion of State Commission could not be answered by it and, therefore, the State Commission dismissed the complaint preserving the right of the complainants to pursue their remedy before the appropriate civil court by observing that they could seek condonation of delay in filing the suit etc. in terms of the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSP. S. G. Industrial Institute 1995 (3) SCC 583, 2. On the first ever date of hearing on 18.01.2010 when the appeals came up for hearing, limited notice were issued to the respondent as to why the cases should not be remitted back to the State Commission for deciding the case on merits. 3. We have heard Mr.D.M.Mathur, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.N.Bohra, learned counsel representing the respondents and have given our thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant on the strength of celebrated decision of Apex Court in the case of Dr.J.J. Merchant & Ors. Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 635 submits that order passed by the State Commission is legally unsustainable because the State Commission could not have relegated the complainants to the jurisdiction of civil court only on the ground that certain complicated questions of facts and law have arisen in the case. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submits that even if this finding of the State Commission is set aside, still the complaints before the State Commission were not maintainable for the simple reason that complainants-appellants are not consumers within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We have considered the respective submissions. The question as to whether a complaint involving complicated questions of fact and law cannot be decided by a consumer fora in exercise of its summary jurisdiction under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and for that reason a consumer fora can relegate the complainant to the jurisdiction of the civil court is no longer resintegra and has been considered and answered by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr.J.J.Merchant & Ors. (supra) wherein it has been held that issues arising in consumer complaints can be speedily disposed of by the procedure of Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies and the Supreme Court did not approve the consumer fora relegating the parties to civil court only on the ground that complicated questions of law and fact have arisen and are required to be answered. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the State Commission could not have dismissed the complaints simply on the ground that several complicated questions of fact and law had arisen in the complaints which could better be answered by a competent civil court. The finding in this regard is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 5. It is pertinent to note that State Commission has not unsuited the complainants on any other ground viz., non maintainability of the complaint etc., although, a preliminary objection was raised by the respondent about the locus of the complainants to maintain the complaints before the consumer fora. In our opinion this aspect alongwith all other aspects are required to be considered by the State Commission for which the complaints are required to be remitted back to the State Commission for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 6. Counsel for the appellants has also contended that during the pendency of the appeals, it has come to the notice of the appellants that respondent has filed a complaint against the Oriental Insurance Company seeking settlement of claim / damages for the loss occasioned to him due to the said fire at his cold storage and, therefore the complainant might consider to implead the insurance company in the complaints filed by them. In this regard we would not like to make any comment and appellants would be free to take any action in accordance with law as they deem proper for realization of their rights. 7. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed and impugned orders passed by the State Commission are hereby set aside and complaints are remitted to the State Commission for answering the same in accordance with law. In view of the objection raised by the respondent in regard to the maintainability of the complaints, the State Commission would be well advised to decide this aspect first before it proceeds to decide the merits of the complaints. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 19.08.2010 for receiving further directions. State Commission is requested to decide the complaints as expeditiously as it may be practicable. Parties to bear their own costs in these proceedings.