Costs paid. Complainants/Petitioners had taken a locker No. 86 from the Respondent bank at its Commercial Agricultural Finance Branch, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana on hire basis. Respondent bank informed the Petitioners that a burglary had taken place in the locker section of the bank during the intervening night of 30-31.12.2003 and 8 lockers including the locker of Petitioners had been broken by the unknown burglars. Bank lodged the FIR No. 314 of 2004 at P.S. Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana. Petitioner gave a list of six articles of gold weighing 63 tolas valuing at Rs. 3,25,0000/-. Respondent did not pay the amount. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent, Petitioners filed the complaint with the allegation that the Respondent has failed to maintain proper security for the lockers. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Respondent to pay Rs. 15,000/- to the Complainant on account of deficiency/negligence in rendering service to them. In so far as the actual loss was concerned District Forum did not determine the actual loss and held that it was not possible for the District Forum to decide the actual loss in a summary proceedings. It was left open to the Petitioners to approach the Civil Court to get the actual loss determined. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the District Forum Petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission, seeking enhancement of compensation whereas the Respondent bank filed the appeal seeking setting aside of the direction to pay Rs. 15,000/- on account of deficiency/negligence on the part of the Respondent. The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner and allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent bank. Being aggrieved the Petitioners/Complainants has filed the present Revision Petition. State Commission relying upon a judgment of this Commission in UCO Bank Vs. R.G. Srivastava 1996(1) CPR, 97 held that it is not possible in summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act to determine the contents of the locker or the actual loss caused to the locker-holder. It was left open to the Petitioner to approach the Civil Court for the redressal of his grievance. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Cases under the Consumer Protection Act are to be decided in summary manner. Dispute where elaborate evidence is required to be taken cannot be decided under the Consumer Protection Act. It is not possible in a summary proceedings to determine the actual loss or the contents of the locker. The State Commission has rightly relegated the Petitioner to seek redressal of his grievance from the Civil Court. Dismissed. Liberty is reserved with the Respondent to seek redressal of his grievance from a court of competent jurisdiction along-with an application u/s 14 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the delay of the time spent in pursuing the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act which the Civil Court would decide keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court of India in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 583.