ANTHONY WILSON v. BANKING OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Bank, I am of the view that the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Bank is right in contending that the relevant date for filing…
Judgment
SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC, SBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 16508 OF 2015 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P7 communication issued by the 1st respondent rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006, on the ground that the complaint was filed beyond the time stipulated in Clause 9(3)(b) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006. According to the petitioner, he had transferred an amount of 60,000 Euros to his NRE account maintained with the 2nd respondent Bank. The complaint of the petitioner is that on the date of the transfer (29.08.2013), the exchange rate for the Euro against the Indian Rupee was Rs.90.0295. However, the funds were credited in the account of the petitioner only on 10.09.2013, by which date the exchange rate had fallen to Rs.85.105 . According to the petitioner, he, therefore, suffered a loss of Rs.1,83,116.11 The petitioner, filed Ext.P4 complaint dated 27.10.2014, which was followed by Ext.P5 lawyer notice dated 20.11.2014. Since the complaints and the lawyer notice did not evoke any response, the petitioner approached the Banking Ombudsman with a complaint. That WP(C) NO. 16508 OF 2015 3 complaint has been rejected by Ext.P7 communication prompting the petitioner to approach this Court challenging Ext.P7.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that with reference to Exts.P4 and P5 that the complaint filed by the petitioner before the Banking Ombudsman could not have been rejected stating that it was beyond the time prescribed in Clause 9(3)(b) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 as the complaint was filed clearly within one year of Ext.P4. It is submitted that in such circumstances, Ext.P7 is liable to be set aside and the Banking Ombudsman must be directed to consider the complaint filed by the petitioner on merits.
The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent refers to the statement filed in this Court. He states that apart from the objection regarding the merits of the petitioner's claim, absolutely no fault can be found with Ext.P7 communication issued by the office of the Banking Ombudsman. It is submitted that even going by Ext.P4 complaint of the petitioner, he had initially taken up the matter with the officers of the Bank immediately after he noticed that he had received a lesser amount WP(C) NO. 16508 OF 2015 4 of credit. It is submitted that going by the statement filed by the 2nd respondent, the first complaint of the petitioner was filed in the month of September 2013 and therefore, going by the provisions of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006, the said date is the relevant date for determining the time within which a complaint had to be filed in terms of the provisions contained in Clause 9(3) (b) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Bank, I am of the view that the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Bank is right in contending that the relevant date for filing a complaint under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 must be calculated with reference to the first date on which the petitioner made a complaint or a representation to the Bank. Clause 9(3)(b) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006, which is on record as Ext.P3 reads as follows:-
(3) No complaint to the Banking Ombudsman shall lie unless:- (b) the complaint is made not later than one year after the complaint has received the reply of the WP(C) NO. 16508 OF 2015 5 bank to his representation or, where no reply is received, not later than one year and one month after the date of the representation to the Bank.
It is clear from Ext.P4 communication issued by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent Bank as also from the statement filed by the 2nd respondent Bank that the first complaint filed by the petitioner regarding the loss suffered by him is in the month of September 2013.
It is clear from the provisions of Clause 9(3)(b) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 extracted above that the date of the said complaint / representation must be treated as the relevant date for determining whether the complaint was filed within the time prescribed by the provisions of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006. It is also to be noted that even going by Ext.P4, it is the petitioner’s own case that immediately after he noticed the loss, he had complained regarding the matter to the 2nd respondent Bank. Therefore, the statement by the 2nd respondent Bank that the petitioner had filed his initial complaint to the Bank in the month of September 2013 appears to be correct. Viewed in that manner, there is absolutely no illegality in Ext.P7 communication issued by the Banking Ombudsman as the Banking WP(C) NO. 16508 OF 2015 6 Ombudsman can act only in accordance with the provisions contained in the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006, which prohibits the Banking Ombudsman from looking into complaints filed beyond the time stipulated by Clause 9(3)(b) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006.
The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. DK Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE WP(C) NO. 16508 OF 2015 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16508/2015 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1: EXHIBIT-P2: EXHIBIT-P3: EXHIBIT-P4: EXHIBIT-P5: EXHIBIT-P6: EXHIBIT-P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED DATED 1.4.2015. A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14.2.2015. A TRUE COPY OF THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN SCHEME, 2006 DATED NIL. A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION WITH ALL CONNECTED RECORDS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 27.10.2014. A TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 20.11.2014. A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 24.11.2014. A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 6.3.2015.
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.