JUSTICE J.M.MALIK 1. The gist of this complaint, where the complainant , Dr. Uttamkumar Samanta, has claimed more than Rs. 7.00 crores, is as follows. On 29.07.2010, the complainant took a prepaid mobile phone SIM Card and related connection from one of the authorized store, located at Patia, Bhubaneswar, Orissa, after submitting all necessary documents, proper identities and residential proof to Bharti Airtel Limited, OP1. However, the above said store was not made a party in this case because the complainant could not recollect the exact details of the store from where he had received the SIM for the telephone. Thereafter, the complainant received numerous messages from OP1 for providing them identity proof and address verification, again and again. This again harassed the complainant and made him run from pillar to post to keep OP1 updated about him very often. The complainant submitted all those documents of identity and address proof to the store as well as to the local representative of OP1 in Bhuvaneshwar who had direct and physical communication with the store. 2. In June, 2011, the complainant shifted to Kolkata permanently. He contacted the customer service of OP1. There was no response. The complainant approached the customer centre, contacted the local centre at Salt Lake City Center and other places of OP1 in Kolkata, several times and requested them verbally to change his port of service of the said telephone to Kolkata. 3. The complainant lost his mobile on 4th January, 2012. FIR was lodged with the nearest Police station and submitted the same along with other documents related to his identities and address proof to the Salt Lake Centre, Kolkata of OP1 in order to get the new SIM card with his saved data in the SIM from OP1. Thereafter, he contacted the Zonal Office in Bhuvaneshwar, Orissa. However, OP1 did not arrange to give a new SIM for the said telephone to the complainant. They asked him to go to Orissa, out of his own expenses. The complainant also wrote email messages to OP1, Nodal Officer, Bhuvaneswar, on 13.01.2012 requesting for SIM replacement. The Nodal Officer, OP1, sent a reply on 14.01.2012 asking the complainant about some questions claiming as their norms. The reply was sent on the same day. The Nodal Officer again wrote to the complainant on 17.01.2012 that information of the complainant was not matching with the information incorporated into their system against the said telephone number and associated account. The complainant answered the questions, again, on 19.01.2012. The complainant was assured service within 72 hours, on 06.02.2012. The needful was not done as promised, so reminder was sent on 09.02.2012. They directed the complainant to visit their website, which meant that OP1 had not maintained proper citizen charter. 4. On 13.02.2012, the complainant got a new SIM from OP1, Kolkata at Cuttack, Orissa. SIM of the telephone was activated within four hours. The complainant came to know on that day that OP1 incorporated unknown person name into his account or sold the SIM of the said telephone number to complainant in a sealed packet, which, either had actually been used by some unknown person or registered that SIM in foreign name but sold to complainant keeping him in dark. Very shocking and surprisingly the complainant found in Cuttack that a serious miscarriage, misuse and mismanagement to his account number, was done by OP1. The new SIM bore other name. The complainant was forced to go to Cuttack, Orissa from West Bengal to collect the same. 5. On 15.02.2012, the complainant again wrote email message to OP1 for correcting his account, ownership of the account and other related to security of his account. On 02.03.2012, OP1, through Shreya Rawal , Officer replied to complainant without resolving anything. They contended that his concern regarding the services for the above-mentioned number has been addressed and the same has been confirmed by the complainant. For not getting any resolution and support from OP1 for more than two months, the complainant again wrote e-mail message to them on 19.05.2012. The complainant had suffered a lot and was harassed by OP1 and his deep concerns and anxieties were not being resolved by them. The complainant also apprised of the fact that his SIM of the said telephone number became inactive without any notice and because of this his recent recharged amount was not showing and he was not able to reach any people of his contacts and even customer service of OP1. 6. On 22.05.2012, OP1, Mr. Shreya Rawal, again asked the complainant, a few questions which were already answered. This further caused harassment to the complainant. On 25.05.2012 itself, Shreya Rawal of OPs Appellate office denied the complainant telephone account to be his own and denied to correct and update his name and identity into the account followed by maintenance of protection and secure of the telephone account under his name and identity. On 31.05.2012, OP1, through its office, revealed the name of third party, a foreign name of anoj kumar Sarangiin the complainant account. The complainant sent another email to OP on 31.05.2012, however, the needful was not done. The complainant sent another email on 08.06.2012, but the same reply was given. Therefore, the correspondences continued on 12.06.2012, 13.06.2012, 26.07.2012, 27.06.2012, 28.07.2012, 30.07.2012, 13.06.2013, 27.06.2013, 29.06.2013, 01.07.2013, 02.07.2013, 04.07.2013, 08.07.2013, 10.07.2013, 17.07.2013, etc. 7. Thereafter, the complainant wrote to the Union of India, through the Secretary, M/o. Communications & Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications (DoTEl), OP2 detailing all the above said facts. The said letter was perhaps forwarded to OP1. Licence was given to OP1 by OP2, Chairman, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), OP3 and Registrar of Companies, M/o. Corporate Affairs, Government of India, OP4. They did not take any action against OP1. OP2 chose to remain silent without bringing any solution to the complainant. They threw him into a huge mental trauma keeping him unsafe and making his telephone account vulnerable and insecure. OP2 probably have had extraneous alliance with OP1 which could be inferred from their arbitrary mode of function and took the matter in a very trivial manner. 8. It is further averred that Union of India, OP2 has been more eager in spreading Hindi, a non-communicable and non-understandable language to complainant at the expense of tax payersmoney. Imposition of Hindi over non-Hindi complainant and consumer like him by the State and Union of India has been very unfortunate and breaches fundamental right of the complainant in this regard. This Commission should take appropriate steps in this regard to protect the consumers of all kinds of problems beyond Hindi region. 9. Finally, the complainant again wrote to OP2 & OP3 on 31.03.2014. He requested OP1 to appoint an Arbitrator, however, the needful was not done. OP1 has declined to correct the complainant account and his ownership to the telephone account. Complainant account has been breached and mis-managed and/or shared with third-party by the active role of OP1. OP1 failed to maintain proper citizens charter. There is unholy nexus on duties and responsibilities and conflict of interests. The complainant was charged high rates by OP1 due to roaming in last three years. This is a deceptive and unfair trade practice, security threat to his life and national interest. Para No.73 of the complaint pertains to the claims, prayers, etc., which runs as follows :- 73. Table 1. Claimed amount of Remedy and Compensation (from OP1 mainly) : Sl. No. Reason and cause of crime Amount of claim (Rs.) 1. a) Deficiency in service b) Forced policy to push petitioner to go out of residing state to sort out any issue related to the telephone, phone accounts and its service c) very unfair trade practices d) promoting business through unfair means and through element of deceptive trade practice e) loss of personal data and information f) loss of account ownership, safety and security g) acute form of harassment in extreme level h) severe mental agony, pain and sufferings i) emotional sufferings j) physical discomfort and loss k) injury and loss of various kinds and resources l) financial loss of different kinds 5,00,00,000/- 2. Towards jeopardizing the safety & security of the complainant account and his life and harassment. 1,00,00,000/- 3. Towards exemplary fine for failure to remedy the situation despite repeated complaints by the complainant as well as clear cut directions 50,00,000/- 4. Towards time loss & disruption of work over a continued period of nearly four years & harassment 20,00,000/- 5. Towards intentional excessive call charges for receiving & sending calls and messages on roaming, and associated harassments. 10,00,000/- 6. Rs. 50,000/- per date of appearance in front of this Commission and/or any court 50,000/- 7. Interest (As applicable ) Total (Rs.) 6,80,00,000/- (Rupees 6 crores eighty lacs) + 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) per date of appearance multiplied by number of dates of appearance + interest on the total amount starting from the date of this petition. Prayer : Remedy, compensation and action That in the light of forgoing facts, circumstances and grounds of the present case and submissions and in the interest of justice, it is humbly prayed before the Honle Commission that the Honle National Commission kindly : 1. Pass an order directing the respondent/opposite party, OP1, to pay the amount of Rs.6,80,00,000/- (Rupees 6 crores eighty lacs) plus Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) per date of appearance multiplied by number of dates of appearance plus interest on the total amount starting from the date of this petition, towards the remedy and compensation to the petitioner for losses and sufferings of various kinds including harassment and mental agony for nearly four years and continuing. 2. Pass an order directing the Opposite parties, OP1 to pay the cost incurred by the petitioner/complainant in filing this complaint and conducting this complaint and loss suffered by the petitioner due to non-payment in time. 3. Pass an order directing the opposite party (OP1) and others of similar nature not to follow and execute the rule and policy which is unfair, malafidely intended, deceptive, fraud in nature in their trades practices and businesses in India. 4. Pass an order or direction for OP2, OP3 and OP4 that this Honle Commission may think appropriate. 5. Pass an order or direction that this Honle Commission may deem fit and proper as per the circumstances of the complaint. 6. Pass an order or direction that this Honle Commission gives relief to the petitioner getting ownership of his telephone account and secured by his name and identities, and protected accordingly by OP1 and others. 7. Pass an order or direction that this Honle Commission gives relief to the petitioner getting telephone service and connection with port-of-service changed and relief from unnecessary roaming charges all the time. 8. Pass an order or direction to OP2-OP5 to collect all the looted and illegally earned money from OP1 as it involved highly deceptive trade practices. 9. Pass an order or direction for appropriate tax and penalty to OP1. 10. Order or direction so that OPs maintain communication by the language understandable by the petitioner and in English, but should not impose any language like Hindi on non-Hindi petitioner and people like him. 11. Any other or further order as may be passed by the Honle National Commission in the interest of justice and in the present facts and circumstances of the case 10. We have heard the complainant, in person. He was advised that this much amount claimed by him can be granted by the Civil Court only. His attention was invited towards recent authorities of the Honle Supreme Court in Pesi Dady Shroff Vs. Boehringer Ingetheim Denmark & Anr., Civil Appeal No.9453 of 2013, filed against this Commission judgment and order passed in Consumer Complaint No.164, dated 10.07.2013, wherein the Honle Supreme Court was pleased to make the following observations :- eaving the question of law open, as to whether in such a fact situation, provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, are applicable, it is open to the appellant to approach the Civil Court for the simple reason that for the purchase price of Rs.4-5 lakhs in 2003, he has claimed a sum of Rs.73.35 crores. Such a claim can be adjudicated only after the assessment of evidence, etc., before the Civil Court and, therefore, it is a fit case where, even if the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is applicable, the appellant must approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief. With these observations, the civil appeal is disposed of 11. In Synco Industries Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Others, (2002) 2 SCC 1, the Honle Apex Court has held as under :- . Given the nature of the claim in the complaint and the prayer for damages in the sum of rupees fifteen crores and for an additional sum of rupees sixty lakhs for covering the cost of travelling and other expenses incurred by the appellant, it is obvious that very detailed evidence would have to be led, both to prove the claim and thereafter to prove the damages and expenses. It is, therefore, in any event, not an appropriate case to be heard and disposed of in a summary fashion. The National Commission was right in giving to the appellant liberty to move the civil court. This is an appropriate claim for a civil court to decide and, obviously, was not filed before a civil court to start with because, before the consumer forum, any figure in damages can be claimed without having to pay the court fees. This, in that sense, is an abuse of the process of the consumer forum 12. The complainant did not respond. The complaint runs into 36 pages, details of every date has been given. This will require sufficient evidence. A number of witnesses are required in this case. The case cannot be decided on the basis of affidavits only. All the complicated and intricate questions of law put forward by the complainant cannot be decided in a summary fashion. The examination of witnesses and their cross-examination is not permissible under the C.P. Act, 1986. All the questions raised above entail a lot of evidence and need proper investigation. The allegations must stand proved in accordance with law. 13. Although, the pleadings are quite impressive, yet the facts are yet to be discussed, down the ground. It is pertinent to know that cross examination of the witnesses is the life/blood of our legal system. It is the only way, a Judge can decide whom to trust and an answer, during cross-examination, may wreck one case. It is painfully apparent that it is impossible to gauge the real issue. This Commission can go into the subject, only skin deep. 14. In view of the above discussion and rulings, we, therefore, dismiss this complaint, with liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court/ High Court or Apex Court in the matter of Hindi language or Criminal Court, to get redressal of his grievance(s), as per law. No order as to costs.