Mr. Divakar Sachithanand, the complainant has filed the instant complaint alleging that he is engaged in the business under the name and style of Polyester Films Incorporation having its office at 40/201 Dickenson Road, Bengaluru. The complainant started using credit card offered by the opposite party No.1 bank in the year 1998. There was some overdue payment qua the credit card account which was settled between the complainant and opposite party No.1 for Rs.14,000/-. The settlement amount was paid in two instalments to the assignee of the opposite party No.1, namely, opposite party No.2. It is alleged that despite of the settlement of credit card account the Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd. report dated 23.2.2010 was showing an outstanding balance of Rs.10,48,401/- against the credit card account of the complainant. It was settled in the year 2002. The complainant on seeing that report sent email dated 18^th October, 2010 to the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to look into the matter and see that the outstanding amount shown against the name of the complainant is removed in the CIBIL report. On 1.12.2010, CIBIL report was updated and showed the status of the complainant as “POST (W/O) SETTLED” It is further the case of the complainant that in the year 2014 complainant applied for a business loan which was rejected on the basis of CIBIL report dated 21.5.2014 which showed overdue balance of Rs.46,56,565/- against the above noted credit card of the complainant. The complainant, thus approached CIBIL and the CIBIL vide email dated 24.5.2014 called upon the complainant to contact the bank for faster resolution. Thereafter, the complainant sent an email dated 24.5.2014 to the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to which opposite party No.2 responded by stating that they have to investigate his account with Standard Chartered Bank before updating the status to the CIBIL. On 18^th September, 2014 complainant was given an option for settlement of his credit card account for Rs.22,000/- against the outstanding dues of Rs.53,85,145.42P despite of the fact that the complainant had already settled the account way back in the year 2002. Thereafter, the complainant had verbally communicated with the opposite party No.1 bank and pursuant to the said communication opposite party No.1 bank sent an email stating that “We confirm having reversed the outstanding dues on your card account held with us. On date, there is no outstanding payable on your card account and that we have made necessary arrangements to update the latest status of the card account in CIBIL, the same would be updated within 45 working days.” On the aforesaid allegation the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking compensation of Rs.5 Crores alongwtih 18% interest thereon.

          We have heard learned counsel for the complainant on admission, particularly the pecuniary jurisdiction. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, “the Act”) provides for hierarchy of the Consumer Fora to deal with the original complaints depending upon the pecuniary value of the complaint. The pecuniary jurisdiction of respective Fora is defined under Sections 11, 17 & 21 of the Act. On reading of the aforesaid, it is clear that if the value of the goods or services plus the compensation claimed is upto Rs.20 Lakhs, the complaint would be within the jurisdiction of the District Forum; if the value exceeds Rs.20 Lakhs but it is upto Rs.1 Crore, then the State Commission would have jurisdiction and the National Commission would have the jurisdiction in cases where pecuniary jurisdiction is more than Rs.1 Crore. This hierarchy and jurisdiction in our view is meant to strictly adhered to and a complainant cannot be permitted to defeat the hierarchy by demanding disproportionate compensation to inflate the value of the complaint.

          On reading of the complaint we find that the complainant has tried to defeat the hierarchy of the system by claiming disproportionate compensation to the tune of Rs.5 Crores in respect of a dispute of a credit card account for a sum of Rs.10,48,401/- reported to the CIBIL which later on became Rs.46, 56,565/- due to the interest liability. It may be noted that the complaint has been filed after opposite party No.1 had informed the complainant vide email dated 30^th October, 2014 that they have reversed the outstanding dues on the credit account and on date there was no outstanding against the said account. The email also intimated that opposite party No.1 has made necessary arrangement to update the latest status of the card in CIBIL, which would be done within 45 days. The compensation of Rs.5 Crores claimed by the complainant is highly disproportionate and there is no justification or basis for claiming said compensation given in the complaint. This, in our view, is nothing but abuse of process of law to defeat the hierarchy of the system and amounts to forum hunting with a view to short circuit the system. Thus, we are of the opinion that the complaint does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the National Commission. It is accordingly rejected with the observation that the complainant, if so advised, may approach the appropriate Forum having pecuniary jurisdiction to seek relief.