JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. The present complaint has been filed by Dr. Harekrishna Biswas as Karta for his wife, Smt. Malti Biswas and himself as complainant. They opened a Joint Fixed Deposit Account with State Bank of India, Durgapur Branch (OP No.4), in the District of Burdwan, deposited a sum of Rs.80,000/- for a period of 1000 days on interest @ 10.50% p.a. The due date of encashment was 04.08.2011. The amount payable to the complainant, on maturity, was Rs.1,06,317/-. The complainant filed Form 15G to the effect that the term deposit periods would continue until the complainant did not want to encash the same as per the conditions laid down in the said term deposit certificate. 2. On 06.11.2013, the complainant went to purchase three Demand Drafts from the said Bank Branch in the name of the Registrar, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, payable at New Delhi, for a sum of Rs.5,000/- each. It is alleged that to the surprise of the complainant, OP No.4 denied to give him permission for encashment of the said amount, due to which the complainant did not have money to meet the expenses for filing the consumer complaints, medical expenses of his family members, marriage of his daughter, etc. The complainant approached the police station and lodged an FIR on 06.11.2013 itself, however, the police did not take any action. Hence he issued notice under Section 80 of the CPC to the then Honle Finance Minister Sh.P. Chidambaram with copies to SBI, Durgapur Branch (OP4), SBI, Regional Office, OP3, Union of India, Department of Financial Services, OP2. 3. Under these circumstances, the present complaint was filed with the following prayers :- . Prayer/Relief, claims & etc, sought for : 1. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed before this Honle National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission/Court/Forum that the respondents/opponent parties, except opposite party No.5 (Five), be directed to pay the following amounts jointly and severally to me (Complainant/claimant) :- (1). In respect of Term deposit A/c No.30560142411 having with the State Bank of India Branch (1822) :- (a) Full encashment values with interest due upto the date of payment in terms of u/s 74 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013 With (b) 10 (ten) crores of rupees in the terms and conditions of u/s 74 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013, with (c) 2 (two) crores of rupees for the further contraventions in the terms of the aforesaid u/s 74 (3) of the Companies Act, 2013, with (d) 5 (five) lakhs of rupees in the statutory provisions of the u/s 452(2) of the Companies Act, 2013, with (e) 1 (one) crore of rupees in the statutory provisions of u/s 46(!) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949; with (f) 1 (one) crore of rupees for first contravention; in the term of u/s 46(6) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949; with (g) 1 (one) lakh of rupees for every day during which the default/contraventions continues for further contraventions, w.e.f. dt. 07.11.2013, according to the statutory provisions of the u/s 46(6) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949; next (h) multiply it by 3 (three) in the terms of u/s 447 of the Companies act, 2013; and next (i) multiply above by 2 (two) in the term of u/s 451 of the Companies Act, 2013; next and (j) 10 (ten) thousand rupees for the first contravention with further fine of 1 (one) thousand rupees for every day during which the contraventions/default continues w.e.f. 07.11.2013, add fine of first contravention with total fines of further contraventions next multiply it by 3 (three) in the term of u/s 450 of the Companies Act, 2013 and next multiply the said sum of 2 (two) in the terms of u/s 451 of the Companies Act, 2013 (2). In respect of Savings Ban A/c No.11418360822/01190007761/7007 having with the State Bank of India Branch (1822) :- (a) Pay full amount with interest due in that A/c upto the date of payment in the term of u/s. 74(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013; with (b) 10 (ten) crores of rupees in the terms of u/s 74(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, with (c)2 (two crores of rupees for further contraventions in terms of said u/s. 74(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, with (d) 5 (five) lakhs of rupees in the terms of u/s 452 (2) of the Companies Act, 2013, with (e) 1 (one ) crore of rupees in the terms of u/s 46(1) of the Banking Regulations act, 1949, with (f) 1 (one) crore of rupees for the first contravention, in the term of u/s 46(6) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, with (g) 1 (one ) lakh of rupees for every day w.e.f. the date 07.11.2013 during which the contraventions /default continues, in the terms of said u/s. 46(6) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, with (h) 10 (ten) thousands of rupees for first contraventions, in terms of u/s 450 of the Companies Act, 2013, with (i) 1 (one) thousand of rupees for every day w.e.f. 07.11.02103 during which the further contraventions/defaults continues, in the terms of u/s 450 (aforesaid) of the Companies Act, 2013, next (j) multiply the above sum of sub-paragraph (2)(i) by 3 (three) in the terms of u/s 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, and next (k) multiply the sum of sub-paragraph (2) (j) by 2 (two), in the terms of u/s 451 of the Companies Act, 2013. (3). Cost of (complaint initiations, travelling, fooding & lodging, for harassment, papers & printing, typing, mental agony, other detrimental sufferings, & etc.) multiply it by 3 (three) in the term of u/s 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 and next multiply it by 2(two) in the term and conditions of u/s 451 of the said Companies Act, 2013; F.1 (4) Total Compensation claimed : Prayer to add the amounts under paragraph No. F.1.(1)(j) with amounts of money under the paragraph No.F.1.(2) (k) with amount of money under paragraph No.F.1(3) and next multiply the said sum/product by 5 (five), according to the statutory provisions of u/s 48 of the Banking Regulations act, 1949 F.2 Punishments, disciplinary steps and actions & etc, against the O.P.s or its alternatives : (a) It is, therefore, respectfully prayed again before this Honle National Consumer Disputes Redressal Tribunal/Court/Forum Commission to recommend for disciplinary actions, punishments, steps, and etc., against the opponent parties according to the statutory provisions of the following :- (1) the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (2) the Consumer Protection Central Rules, 1987 (3) the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, (4) the service Rules applicable to them (OPs), (5) u/s 73/74, 75, 271, 272, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 463 and etc., of the Companies Act, 2013; (6) u/s 46, 46A, 47, 48 and etc., of the Banking Regulations act, 1949; (7) required appropriate provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; (8) required appropriate provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, (9) required appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal Codes & the Codes of Criminal Procedures, (10) as per the provisions of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (11) Constitution of India, (12) verdicts of the Honle Supreme Court of India in : (i) Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, 1994 (1) SCC 243 pronounced on dt. 05.11.1993, (ii) Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir, and etc., and (13) any other law & orders and etc., are applicable to them. OR F.2.(b) Except any debt, 80 (Eighty) percent of assets & Properties (movable and immovable) of the State Bank of India and 75 (seventy-five) percent of assets/properties (moveable and immovable) of the Government of India (the opponent party No.1 & 2) respectively, shall be in the name of mine (the complainant/ claimant/plaintiff) and I plaintiff/ complainant Dr. Harekrishna Biswas shall be full and absolute authority to use and manage the said property according to my will and directions/orders, etc. The aforesaid assets & properties shall be besides the other compensations which I claimed. F.3 Such any other relief which this Honle National Consumer Disputes Court/Tribunal/ Commission/Forum may deem fit and proper in view of the facts, red hand evidences, gravity and etc., of the case, please be granted in favour of me (complainant/claimant/plaintiff) and against the opponent parties. 4. During the arguments, we tried to persuade the complainant to understand that his case pertains to Rs.80,000/- plus interest only, and he was making a claim on the higher side. He was informed that the jurisdiction of this Commission extends to One Crore and above. However, he insisted that he will neither amend the case nor he will approach the lower fora. He could not show us that he is an Income Tax Payee. No evidence recording his status is placed on the record. This must be borne in mind that this Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is a summary court. Because the matter pertains to more than Rs.Fifteen Crores, therefore, it entails a lot of evidence. The examination of witnesses and cross-examination is not permissible as such under the said Act. The pleadings of the complainant also entail the element of criminality. However, the criminal court has not given any finding. Even the police did not bother to take any action. There must be some material for a summary court to base its findings. It is too early to give our piece at this stage in absence of solid and unflappable evidence. All these allegations cannot be proved by mere affidavits or interrogatories. A number of issues have to be examined. A number of documents will have to be produced. The cross-examination of the witnesses will be having an important place in this case. It is pertinent to note that cross-examination of the witnesses is the life/blood of our legal system. It is the only way, Judge can decide, to whom to trust and an answer, during such cross-examination, which may wreck one case. It is painfully apparent that it is impossible to gauge the real issue. From the affidavits, this Commission will not be able to winnow truth from falsehood. This Commission can go into the subject only skin deep. 5. In a recent authority 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, 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 6. 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 7. In view of the above discussion and rulings, we, therefore, dismiss this complaint, with liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court and Criminal Court to get redressal of his grievances, as per law. No order as to costs.