Per Hon’ble Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
Heard Mr.N.V.Sharma appellant in person.
In the instant case complainant is a practicing lawyer. He raised a housing loan from opponent no.1-HDFC Ltd. Unfortunately, consequent to the Income-tax raid at his office, led him to be a defaulter in payment of the said loan. Consequent to it an Executive of opponent no.1 bank visited him and the Complainant handed over a cheque no.161114 dated 29/05/2006 to the said executive (towards the dues). In the course of arguments, it is tried to be submitted that said cheque which was collected from his residence was deposited into bank for encashment without intimation to the Complainant and that amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent No.1 Bank. We are unable to accept this submission, but even for the sake of arguments if it is held that there is deficiency in service on the part of opponent no.1 Bank at that point of time, for such deficiency in service in the year 2006, a consumer complaint as filed in the year 2012, per se, cannot be entertained without any application for the condonation of delay.
As revealed from the statements made in the complaint, consequent to dishonour 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 incidence 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.
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 complaint. Hence complaint is not admitted and stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 4th July, 2012.
