Appellant who is a lawyer took a loan from the Bank.  Cheque issued by him towards payment of the installment was dishonored.  Respondent initiated proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.  Some other complaint was also filed.  Appellant filed the complaint before the State Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent as the respondent had filed two criminal proceedings arising out of the same incident.  State Commission has dismissed the complaint by observing thus:

                       “As revealed from the statements made in the complaint, consequent to dishonor of the cheque issued, criminal proceedings in the Metropolitan Magistrate Court against the complainant were taken under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.  There were two criminal proceedings taken.  His grievance is about lodging two criminal proceedings out of same incident amounts to deficiency in service.  We are unable to accept this submission also because while defending those criminal actions he could very well take appropriate defence and we cannot go into that area since it is a matter of jurisdiction of Criminal Court and not a Consumer Court.

                         As per statement made in para 33 of the complaint, it reads as under:

                                  That the complainant is mentally, physically and emotionally harassed in this loans matters cases and false statements in the Hon’ble Court is amounts to deficiency of services from the opponents to the complainant.  Hence the compensation matter is taken out in this Court Mumbai.

                       Because of launching of the criminal proceedings, which can be termed as pursuing legal remedy, recourse taken by opponent no.1-bank in a particular circumstance, it cannot be termed as mental, physical and emotional harassment in connection with the loan matter.  That also would not amount to deficiency in service as tried to be alleged by the complainant.  There is no hiring of service as far as these matters are concerned.

-4-

                       For the reasons stated above, we find the complainant miserably failed to make out any prima facie case so that his particular grievance could be entertained as a consumer dispute.  We find no merit in the compliant.  Hence complaint is not admitted and stands disposed of accordingly.  No order as to costs.

            Even on the second call counsel for the appellant is not present.  Dismissed for non-prosecution.

            Otherwise also we agree with the view taken by the State Commission that pursuing of legal remedy does not amount to deficiency in service.  Dismissed.