Quashed

Gorekhanath Multi Purpose Self Help Co-Operation Ltd. v. Banking Ombudsman

Orissa HC5 May 2017WP(C)/15039/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed the order of the Banking Ombudsman which rejected a complaint under Clause 13(c) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006. Holding that the rejection was not in accordance with the Scheme as the matter required elaborate evidence and the Ombudsman failed to strictly follow the law. The matter was remitted to the Ombudsman to be heard afresh and pass a speaking order within three mon

What did the court decide?

The order of the Banking Ombudsman rejecting the complaint was quashed. The matter was remitted to the Ombudsman to be heard afresh and pass a speaking order within three months.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Ombudsman has passed the o rder dated 9.5.2016 in Complaint No. 1787/2015-16 purportedly under clause 13(c) of the Bankin g Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 (hereinafter called as the Scheme). Clause-13 (c) of the Scheme state s that the Banking Ombudsman may reject a complaint at any stage if it appears to him that the complaint made is not pursued by the complainant with reasonable diligence; or inconvenience caused to the complainant. But in the instant case, the learned Ombudsman had simply observed that the matter requires consideration on elaborate documentary and oral evidence. So, accordi ng to him the order is not passed under clause-13(c) of the Scheme. He further submits that su b-paragraph (2) of paragraph-7 of the Scheme states that the learned Ombudsman after receiving the complaint in regard to the deficiency in Banking and other services would facilitate set tlement by agreement or through conciliation or mediation between the parties and passed the a ward accordingly. He submits that learned Ombudsman also has not exercised the jurisdiction as endowed under sub-clause (2) of paragraph-7 of the Scheme.

6. Mr. Kar, appearing on behalf of opp. Parties 2 to 5 submits that paragraph-4 of the or der of the learned Ombudsman is clear to show that the learned Ombudsman passed the order by r eferring to clause-13 (c) of the Scheme. He further submits that if the matter is remitted to the learned Ombudsman for disposal in accordance with law, the same would be disposed of accor dingly.

7. Considered the submissions of learned counsels for both parties. After perusal of the order of the learned Ombudsman it appears that after recording the case of the Bank and the p resent petitioner he has come to a finding at paragraphs-5 and 6 which are placed below for re ference:-

In view of the claim by you and counter claim by the bank, it is felt that disposal of the complaint requires consideration of elaborate documentary and oral evidence and the proce edings before the Banking Ombudsman, being summary in nature, are not appropriate for adjudica tion of the complaint. Therefore, the complaint is rejected under clause 13 (c) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006.

(6) The Scheme does not provide for any right or appeal in case of rejection of a complaint under clause 13 (c) thereof. However, you are at liberty to approach any other griev ance redressal authority in accordance with law.

8. The Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 specifically enshrines about the manner of disposal of the complaint by the Banking Ombudsman. Clause-13(c) of the Scheme states that the Banking Ombudsman may reject a complaint at any stage, if it is not pursued by the complainant with r easonable diligence. Similarly, clause-7 (2) of the Scheme states as follows:-

(2) The Banking Ombudsman shall receive and consider complaint relating to the deficiencie s in banking or other services filed on the grounds mentioned in clause 8 and facilitate their satisfaction or settlement by agreement or through conciliation and mediation between the ban k concerned and the aggrieved parties or by passing an Award in accordance with the Scheme.

9. After going through the above order and the provisions discussed, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Ombudsman has not exercised the power in accordance with law as ensh rined in the Scheme. Hence, the order passed by the learned Ombudsman is hereby quashed. The m atter is remitted back to the learned Ombudsman who would hear the matter afresh after affordi ng reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties and pass a speaking order strictl y in accordance with law within a period of three moths from today.

and the learned Ombudsman shall not be influenced by any observation made by this Court. The writ application is disposed of accordingly. Requisites for communication of this order to the learned Banking Ombudsman be filed w ithin three working days.

Gorekhanath Multi Purpose Self Help Co-Operation Ltd. v. Banking Ombudsman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gorekhanath Multi Purpose Self Help Co-Operation Ltd. v. Banking Ombudsman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biswajit Kamila Vs State of Orissa

Indramani Mohanty Vs Ranjana Chopra

Chinmayee Senapati Vs Registrar State Information Commission

Kailash Ch.Mohanta Vs Cheif General Manage

Shyam Biri Works Ltd. Vs State of Orissa

Dipak Sutar Vs State of Orissa