Adv.Ravi Susha, Member

                    The complainant had availed a loan of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees.Fifty thousand) vide loan account No.DIL 44/2004 from the first opposite party bank. The second opposite party is the recovery officer of the 1^st opposite party. The complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.

(2)

           The complainant after availing loan from the first opposite party was repaying the loan amount on daily basis. The collection agent of the first opposite party was collecting the loan amount from the complainant periodically and was issuing receipts evidencing the repayment. Pursuant to that the complainant had repaid a larger part of the loan. Later the agent of the first respondent did not turn up to collect the periodical amount for the repayment of the loan and it was reliably learnt that the agent of the first opposite party had misappropriated the funds entrusted by the complainant for the repayment of the loan amount.

         Later the second opposite party issued a demand notice vide no.689/2011 demanding the complainant to remit Rs.85,591/- towards the repayment of the loan amount. The demands of the opposite parties are illegal and without any basis. The opposite parties did not issue any notice with regard to the proceedings initiated against the complainant so enabling him to substantiate his contentions. As a principal the opposite party is liable to the illegal acts committed by the agent deputed by the opposite parties for collecting the loan amount periodically. The opposite parties had not properly accounted the amount repaid by the complainant through the agent of the opposite party. The amount arrived by the opposite party vide demand notice referred above is without any legal basis and highly inflated.

(3)

         Hence the complainant had approached the Forum to set aside the demand of Rs.85,591/- vide demand notice no.689/2011 and to restrain the opposite party from proceedings further on the basis of the said demand till the disposal of this complaint.

      Opposite party did not filed version and evidence.

Points :-

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

         2. Relief and cost

           In this case the complainant approached the Forum to set aside the demand notice no.689/2011 dated: 08/11/2011 issued by the opposite parties in favour to the complainant and to retrain the opposite party from proceedings further on the basis of the demand notice. Complainant’s case is that he had availed a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the first opposite party bank and repaid a larger part of loan. Here the complainant has produced only Ext.P1 demand notice of opposite parties to prove his case. In the complaint, the complainant has not specified how much amount he has repaid. Complainant has not produced any material evidence to prove that he has repaid such and such amount to the first opposite party. Mere pleadings in the complainant is not sufficient. Without producing any material evidence, mere pleadings in the complaint and affidavit cannot be accepted. Even though the opposite parties are exparte, the complainant should have proved his

(4)

case. Ext.P1 is not sufficient to prove the complaint. Complainant should have produced the repayment receipt. If there is any liability, the opposite party is having at liberty to issue demand notice.

                  On considering the available evidence we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to get the relief.

            In the result the complaint fails and the same is herby dismissed.

       Dated this the 20^th day of September 2012