Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

        Instant Complaint u/s 17 (1) (a)(i) of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been taken up for passing necessary order. 

       The facts, in brief, leading to the present controversy, were that one Gunvantrai Vora, since deceased, the erstwhile sole proprietor of Himali International, opened a fixed deposit account for an amount of Rs.2,05,106/- in the name of the collector of customs A/C with new bank of India, now known as Punjab National Bank, Dharmatala Branch, Kolkata, the OP No.1, on 26.03.1992 in terms of the court’s order. 

       A standing instruction was given by the custom authority to the said sole proprietorship firm vide its letter dated 24.09.1992 to renew the said deposit from time to time.

       The customs authority ultimately released the said deposit in favour of Gunvantrai Vora and requested under letter dated 16.07.2001 to the bank to make payment of the said amount to the said sole proprietorship firm.

       The said bank, under its letter dated 18.09.2001, issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.2,16,387/- to the said Himali International, the sole proprietorship firm.  The said amount, as alleged, was devoid of the interest accrued on the amount for the period with effect from 26.09.1992 till 18.09.2001.  Sri Vora, being the sole proprietor, refused to accept the cheque on the ground that due interest as mentioned above was not paid.

        A number of complaints was lodged with the bank authority towards payment of the entire amount with full interest by Mr. Vora and thereafter his wife, a senior citizen lady of 75 years after her husband’s death without any effective result being derived as of now.

       The Complainant, thereafter, being aggrieved with the allegedly unfair trade practice and deficiency in rendering services by the OP No.1, filed the Complaint case before this Commission. 

Heard the Complaint ex-parte against the OPs.

      The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Complainant submitted that the subject fixed deposit was made for a period of six months in the year 1992 on condition of renewal of the F.D from time to time.  The OP No.1 bank refunded the principal amount in the year 2001 with interest for a period of six months only.  The interest for the full period being not paid, the Complainant refused to accept the refund cheque. 

       As continued, the Complainant submitted the bank reconciliation statement corroborating her claim of interest for the entire period but to no effect. 

       Ld. Advocate, with the above submission, prayed for the Complaint to be allowed directing the OP No.1 to do as per prayer in the Complaint.

        Perused the papers on record.  Considered submission of the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant.  It appeared that the Complainant’s discontent involves only the non-payment of interest component accrued on the amount of Rs.2,05,106/- for the period with effect from 26.09.1992 till the date of payment, that is, 18.09.2001. 

        Since the fixed deposit was made on 26.03.1992 and refund cheque for an amount of Rs.2,16,387/- was issued on 18.09.2001, it is an obvious conclusion that an interest of only six months to the tune of Rs.11,281/-  (2,16,387-2,05,106) was intended to be made along with the principal amount of Rs.2,05,106/-.

       In the light of the above, it came apparent that the Appellant/Complainant, in its Complaint petition, claimed an astronomical amount of Rs.25,72,412/- along with interest @11% p.a. from 16.03.2015 till realization for the interest accrued on an amount of Rs.2,05,106/-.

      In the given circumstances, we are constrained to derive an inference that the Appellant/Complainant filed the instant Complaint quantifying a claim, unusually inflated and without any satisfactory explanation, with a view to invoking jurisdiction of this Commission. 

        In the above contest, we place our reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Consumer Complaint Nos.383 to 391, 398 to 402, 412, 415 of 2013 [Indrani Chatterjee and Anr. Vs. AMRI Hospitals through its management] reported in 2014 (4) CPR 681 (NC) wherein the Hon’ble National Commission was pleased to dismiss the Complaint observing that the  claim was unusually inflated to invoke the jurisdiction of the National Commission.

        In the fact and circumstances narrated above, this Bench declines to accept the claim of the instant Complaint.

        Hence,

Ordered

        that the Complaint case stands dismissed.  The Complainant may move the appropriate Forum to get her grievance addressed. In that case, the Complainant will be entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works—Vs—P.S.G. Industrial Institute AIR 1995 SC 1428 for the purpose of exclusion of time spent in pursuing the case before this Commission.