JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. The burning questions which fall for consideration are firstly, hether the case is barred by time? and secondly, hether the OPs are bound to pay a colossal amount of loan to the complainant, which they have declined to pay? 2. Somashekhar, the complainant was a customer of ICICI Bank Ltd, Opposite party No.1, who had availed loans from the OP No.1 on various dates between the years 2001 and 2007. The loan was repaid on various dates between the years 2003 and 2011. The complainant, with the desire to extend his business and develop his properties, approached all the opposite parties and submitted 29 applications between the years 2006 and 2011. The complainant was constrained to raise substantial amount on various dates between the years 2009 and 2010. In the 29 applications, the complainant had asked for a total sum to the tune of Rs.6,51,78,982/- for his several mega business projects and for housing purposes, between the years 2006 and 2011. The complainant has also mentioned that he would also invest in Hotel project, cement project, Hollow project, etc., and prepared a detailed plan(s), project reports and submitted the same to the Opp.parties. The complainant furnished all the requisite documents. There were several rounds of discussions. The complainant was told that applications were being forwarded to the higher officials and the same were being processed. 3. The complainant was given assurance but before the loans were sanctioned, he had raised the initial capital as back as in the year 2006, either by selling or pledging his valuable properties. The complainant entered into an agreement to sell the property bearing No. 1/6 (old number) (New Number 43), situated at Shivanagar, Bangalore for a sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs, in favour of one Shivaprasad of Bangalore. Since the OPs had given him positive hopes during the years 2009 and 2010, the complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs and Rs.5.00 lakhs from V.B.Yaligar of Bangalore, on 01.03.2009 and 11.03.2009, respectively. He also borrowed a sum of Rs.8.00 lakhs from one R.M.Raviprakash of Bangalore, on 24.09.2009. He further executed a Promissory Note in favour of one Ms.Suguna. 4. His other assets, properties and buildings, worth Rs.8.2 crores offering for security, etc., were kept idle to meet the exigencies, in anticipation of sanctioning of loans by the opposite parties/bankers. A number of times, the complainant made requests to the banks but the matter was put off, on one pretext or the other. 5. It transpired that the bankers were slow due to the report submitted by Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as IBIL in short). In October, 2010, the complainant wrote to CIBIL alleging that their reports had impeded the processing of his loan applications. CIBIL replied vide letter dated 30.11.2010, that they regret their inability to process his request as the address mentioned by him does not match with the same, on the Credit Information Report (hereinafter referred to as CIR, in short). The complainant accordingly sent his address once again and waited for a long time. CIBIL, by its yet another letter, dated 24.12.2010, sought some other particulars. Thereafter, CIBIL did not respond. 6. The complainant was compelled to approach the RBI vide letter dated 05.05.2011, which through its letter dated 02.06.2011, asked the complainant to approach the Managing Director of CIBIL. After Herculean efforts, the complainant received reports from CIBIL, dated 19.10.2010, marked as Annexure L, mentioned that his CIR was manifestly fallacious and distorted. It did not mention the true facts. The complainant wanted that necessary corrections may be made. Vide copies of letters dated 22.10.2010 and 23.10.2010. CIBIL issued reports dated 27.10.2010 and 27.01.2011, but no corrections were made. 7. The complainant also approached the Office of the Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India (Bangalore) and also the Chairperson/ Chairman, High Level Advisory Committee (RBI), through letters dated 16.05.2011 for an appropriate action. However, on 20.06.2011, the complainant again sent a reminder to Opp.parties/ CIBIL. The CIBIL issued another report dated 30.08.2011 which was also not correct. Many entries were wrongly shown and in a dilly-dallied manner. Another reminder was sent by the complainant on 15.09.2011. The Ombudsman, RBI, Bangalore, vide its letter dated 25.04.2012, ordered that the matter was outside its purview. Under these circumstances, this complaint was filed before this Commission, on 30.05.2013, with the following prayers :- . A sum of Rs.11,50,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven crores and fifty lakhs only), being the total amount towards loss and damage and compensation. ii. An interest at the rate of 18% from the date of deficiency till the date of payment. iii. Grant such other relief/s that, this Honle Commission deems fit to grant in facts and circumstances of the case 8. We have heard the counsel for the complainant. The cause of action arose on 22.10.2010 when the CIBIL had refused to pay the money to the complainant. It came to the knowledge of the complainant and that is why he sent representations vide letters dated 22.10.2010 and 23.10.2010. Because the cause of action had arisen from 22.10.2010, the reminders and reports do not extend the period of limitation. The reports of the Ombudsman and the pendency of the case, does not go to the rescue of the complainant and that time is not to be adjusted. The case was not filed within two years from 22.10.2010 onwards and, therefore, it is barred by time. 9. Secondly, it is not understood as to how the complainant is a onsumer It is the prerogative of the Bank to advance loan or not to advance loan. They have to satisfy themselves. The complainant was asking for an astronomical amount. It is a well-known fact that there are a number of ad loans in each and every bank. People of this country take loans but subsequently they waddle out of their commitments. The Bank has to satisfy itself whether such a whopping amount of loan should be given to a genuine person or not. 10. It must be borne in mind that the Bank has not yet granted loan to the complainant. He is not a onsumer All the transactions are ommercial transactions By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the complainant is a onsumer 11. Lastly, this case entails lot of evidence, examination of witnesses, examination of Expert report, etc. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we deal with summary procedure. The complaint itself runs into 43 pages and is a voluminous record. Although under Section 3 of the CP Act, 1986, this Commission can deal with such like matters, yet, when lot of evidence is to be recorded, this case must be dealt with by the Civil Court/High Court. 12. For all these reasons, we dismiss the complaint with costs in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, which be deposited with the Prime Minister Relief Fund, for Uttarakhand Tragedy, within 60 days, failing which, it will carry interest @ 9% p.a. The Registrar of this Commission is directed to see that this order is complied with and shall submit his report, within 30 days thereafter.