Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 20.09.2010 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in first appeal No. 1444 of 2007. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against an order dated 1.5.2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, dismissing the complaint by making following observations and findings:- “…….it is crystal clear that in the present complaint, complicated question of law and facts are involved. Elaborate evidence is required to reach the right conclusion of the case. The parties have levelled allegations and counter allegations on each other. Such type of dispute cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction. Civil Court is the best platform for getting right decision. The complainant is advised to approach the civil court, if he so desired. The authorities submitted by ld. Counsel for the complainant are of no use and not applicable to the present case because the facts of the present case are different from that cases. With this direction, the present complaint is disposed off. No order as to costs.” In appeal, the State Commission took the view and in our opinion, rightly so the questions of fact of law involved in the complaint were not such as could not have been answered by consumer fora established under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and, therefore, the order of the -3- District Consumer Forum relegating the complainant to the jurisdiction of Civil Court was not justified. Hitherto, there was no problem in the order so passed by the State Commission but the problem started from the stage when after holding so, the State Commission has decided the complaint itself on merits and has allowed the same partly with certain directions for payment of compensation etc. to the complainant. Strictly speaking such a course was legally not permissible for the State Commission going by the hierarchy of consumer fora established under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Ideally, the State Commission having reached the finding that the order of the District Consumer Forum relegating the petitioner to the jurisdiction of civil court was erroneous, it should have remitted the matter back to the District Consumer Forum for deciding the complaint on merit because the District Consumer Forum had not adverted to the merits of the complaint while dismissing the complaint on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. In our view, the impugned order has resulted into miscarriage of justice. The order is legally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. Having considered the matter, the revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission so far as it has decided the complaint on merits also, is hereby set aside. However, the order so far as it has held that the consumer fora had the necessary -4- jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint is upheld. As a consequence, the complaint is remanded back to the concerned District Consumer Forum for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law expeditiously, latest within a period of four months from the date of receipt of order. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned District Consumer Forum on 4.8.2011. The deposited amount shall await the final outcome of the complaint. | 
