Shyam Babu Gope v. Bank Of India & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- NAVIN SINHA
Provisions considered
Judgment
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 11-01-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is stated to be a Class-IV employee in the Water Tower under the Patna Municipal Corporation. He is aggrieved by what he alleges is wrongful withdrawal of Rs. 15,000/- from his A/c No. 441010100016232 with the Bank of India, Birchand Patel Marg, Sone Bhawan at Patna. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not withdrawn that amount on 19.9.2012 through his A.T.M. card. The withdrawal is unauthorized by another. The money was held by the Bank in trust for a customer. They are liable to refund the amount. His letters to the Bank have evoked no response. Rather than to issue notice to the Bank call for a counter affidavit delaying matters, in view of the availability of a more expeditious and efficacious remedy before the Banking Ombudsman created under Section 35 A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a complaint under Section 16. 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.533 of 2013 (2) dt.11-01-2013 Let the Banking Ombudsman exercise his statutory powers on the complaint and pass appropriate orders at the earliest preferably within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The Court expects the Banking Ombudsman to display proper sensitivity to the fact that the petitioner is a grade-IV employee for whom a sum of Rs. 15,000/- has high value. It is expected that if the Banking Ombudsman after hearing the Bank is satisfied with the claims he shall appropriately not only direct refund but shall also direct payment of appropriate interest to the petitioner not only for what may have been earned by him, if the amount had remained in his Account but also by way of compensation for the harassment that the petitioner may have had to face. The writ application is disposed. P. Kumar/- (Navin Sinha, J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.