PRESENT

                   Complainant by Adv.Smt.Sarika Mhatre present.      

                    Opponent by Adv.Smt.Anita A.Marathe present.

ORDER

(Per- Mr. S. D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President.)

1.                The complainant was an employee  of Centurian Bank , which was merged with HDFC Bank Ltd.  He obtained  loan on 13.10.2007 to the amount of Rs.2,57,000/- ( Two lacs and fifty seven thousand ) payable by installments from the opposite party.  The said loan was not paid as per  agreement.  He was not paid salary for six months by opposite party.

2.                The complainant alleged that, opposite party filed case against him at Bhopal, instead of Bombay, with intent to harass him.   He also alleged  that opposite party harassed him during 10.11.2009 through recovery agents, who were threatening him  and family members with dire consequences at odd hours, in violations of the guidelines issued by RBI and courts.

3.                The complainants alleged that he paid Rs. 1,39,240/- during 10.11.2008 to 10.12.2009  to recovery agents, who used to abuse and insult him and family members in presence of guests.  He claimed compensation of Rs.75,000/- and cost of Rs.25,000/- from opposite party.

4.                The opposite party filed written version on 14.01.0213 and resisted all allegations made in the complaint.  It is alleged that, complainant was a chronic defaulter in payment of loan which was payable by him in 60 months.

5.                The opposite party stated that loan recovery proceedings have been initiated by bank as per due process of law and denied specifically about adopting unfair method or muscle power.  The diary of the complainant is fabricated  document and there is no deficiency.

6.                We have perused complaint, written version, affidavit of evidence, written  notes of argument as well as all documents produced on record.  Heard learned counsel for opposite party Anita Marathe as well as  Sarika Mhatre at length.

7.                Admittedly complainant was serving  as an employee  with opposite party and he obtained loan which was not paid as per the terms of loan agreement.

8.                The main grievance of the complainant is that opposite party filed proceeding as per section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 at Bhopal instead of Mumbai, with intent to harass him in violation of  settled legal position.  The second grievance is that he paid certain amount to recovery agents and the said agents, were  mussale men who use the adopted unfair means of threatening and abusing for recovery of loan.

9.                The opposite party denied the use of muscle power  for recovery of loan, however  asserted the right of bank to recover  loan by following due process of law.  As regards filing of proceeding under section 138 of N.I. opposite party, stated that steps are taken as per law.

10.              This is the genesis of the dispute between the parties.  The complainant has not proved by cogent evidence the use of muscle power by  opponent   through recovery agents.  The issue of filing 138 N.I.Case at Bhopal cannot be said to be a deficiency in service.  The learned Advocate Anita Marathe argued that, opposite party acted fairly and reasonably.  The 57 no cheques issued by complainant were  bounced and complainant instead of paying loan, filed complaint.

11.              The learned Adv. for complainant has not submitted about obligation of complainant towards bank about payment of loan.  The opposite party specifically denied allegation regarding forceful recovery .  In view of the facts and circumstance, we hold that, opponent is not guilty for deficiency of service.  The claim of compensation  of Rs.75,000/- and cost of Rs.25,000/- of complainant fails.

12.              In the result, we  pass the following order.

                                 ORDER

1.RBT complaint No.178/2011 is dismissed.

2.   No order as to costs.