JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. The gist of this 76-pages complaint is as follows. Sh.Pritpal, TTE and Sh. Arvind, another TTE, who are arrayed as OPs 3 & 4, respectively, approached the complainant, Kum. Sangita Tukaramji Rokde, while she was traveling in the A/c Coach and demanded a sum of Rs.840/-. She asked for the receipt but they misbehaved with her and admitted that they were taking bribe from the complainant. The actual rate was only Rs.200-300/- . Other persons also witnessed the same, whose names were not disclosed for the moment. The complainant was accompanied by Mr. P.C.Tiwari, her escort. The complaint was also made to Mr. Mudliyar, Guard, OP13, but he did not pay any heed to her complaint. 2. When the OPs 3 & 4 found that Mr.Mudliyar was not taking any action, the complainant was thrown out of her compartment, by them. The complainant wanted to make a report before Sh. Meena, OP5, who was working as Dy. S.M., Gondia. First of all, he did not want to give the complaint book, but after much pressure, the complaint book was given to her. Complaint was also made to Mr. Pradip Kumar, Sr.DCM, OP6, Sh. Abdul Latif, Enquiry Officer, OP7, Sh. O.P. Jaiswal, Nagpur Division Service, OP8, Sh. Tondan, GM, OP9, Sh. S.N. Varma, DRM, OP10 and Sh. Mukharji, DCM, OP11, but no action was taken against them on the pretext that false complaint was lodged against them. They worked in cahoots with each other and made up their minds that she should not travel in A/c coach, in future. Consequently, this complaint was filed before this Commission, on 20.03.2014, with the following prayers :- 1. It be held that the respondents officers of railway have had intentionally committed negligence and deficiency in providing service to complainant and accordingly she be suitably compensated and oppositor railway officer/ authority be issued direction to provide facility and safety to complainant while on her future train journey as and when required in the interest of justice. 2. In the interest of justice and fair disposal the opposite parties be directed jointly and severally to pay to the complainant Rs.Five Crore (Rs. Five Hundred Lacs) for their extremely negligent attitude and for reason of continuous and consistence harassment to her and coupled with reason of not providing timely service to her and with the fact of denial of service to her despite of her readiness and for the reason of not providing safety and security to her while on train journey on various occasion and consistent and regular insult and humiliation of her in public place on number of times by different officer of railway cadres only for the reason that she is fighting against the corruption prevailed in railway and exposure of involvement of officers of railway. 3. That, any other relief deems fit in the circumstances of the case be kindly granted to applicant/complainant 3. We have heard the counsel for the complainant, at length, continuously, for two hearings. He contended that this is a case of corruption and whole of the railway department is involved. He argued that the complainant, Kumari Sangita Tukaramji Rokde, is a physically disabled person. She carries a certificate of being physically disabled, every now and then. A report with the CBI, Nagpur, was also lodged on 09.10.2013, which is attached along with this complaint. The matter was also published by the media and report of newspaper clipping of Dainik Bhaskaran, dated 01.07.2013 has been placed on record. 4. It was further submitted that the complainant is an Advocate and physically disabled and basically permanent orthopedically handicapped (disability of 40%). She is a permanent invitee of Lok Adalat and has attended many seminars and is pursuing to become a District Judge. She also cleared the examination for the post of Anganwadi Supervisor and exmaination of clerk. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant lastly submitted that he will have to examine at least 10-12 witnesses, to prove all these allegations. The complainant, on 15.05.2014, has also placed on record, various documents to support her case. 6. We have considered the complainant case thoroughly. He has admitted that the complainant is not an Income Tax Payee. For the meagre sum of about Rs.500/-, she is claiming Rs.5.00 crores, as compensation. This Commission,under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is a summary court. The examination of witnesses and their cross-examination is not permissible as such. She has lodged report with the CBI. The offence of bribe is yet to be proved. This Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, does not deal with the cases of bribery and fraud. These entail a lot of evidence and proper investigation. The offence must stand proved in accordance with law. Although, the pleadings are quite impressive, yet, the facts are yet to be discussed down the ground. The consumer fora cannot arrogate to itself the powers of a CBI Court or a Court under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is too early to give our piece at this stage in absence of solid and unflappable evidence. All these allegations cannot be proved through mere affidavits or interrogatories. 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 answer, during cross-examination, which may wreck one case. It is painfully apparent that it is impossible to gauge the real issue. This Commission is unable to winnow truth from falsehood. This Commission can go into the subject, only skin deep. It cannot be said at this stage, at which way the wind will blow. 7. 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 8. 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 9. In view of the above discussion and rulings, we, therefore, dismiss this complaint, with liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court or Criminal Court, to get redressal of her grievance(s), as per law. The Interim Application (unnumbered) filed on 13.05.2014, by the complainant, for grant of Rs.40,00,000/- against OPs, is also dismissed, for the above said reasons.