PHILIP SAM v. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD

S.SIRIJAGAN, J.------------------------------------------WP (C) No. 24088 of 2010---------------------------------------Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T--------------------------The petitioner is a teacher by profession and he isrunning educational institutions. He is holding anaccount with the first respondent. He had availed avehicle loan from the 3rd respondent Bank. For payment ofthe installment amounts of that loan the petitioner hasissued an ECS mandate to the respondents 1 and 2 forpayment from out of his account. The mandate has beenaccepted by respondents 1 and 2 and the 3rd respondent. Alleging that ECS mandate has not been properlycomplied with, the petitioner approached the Bankingombudsman, the 4th respondent herein. After obtainingthe version of the Bank and stating the reasons mentionedby the first respondent Bank therein, the BankingOmbudsman finally rejected the complaint of thepetitioner in the following words:- 2WP (C) No. 24088 of 2010“Considering the details of the complaint and the Bank'sversion, no case of deficiency of service as alleged againstSouth Indian Bank is substantiate. HDFC Bank has alsoreimbursed charges of Rs.454/- levied to the complainant'sloan account”.2. The petitioner's grievance is that this is not properconsideration by the Banking ombudsman and thereforeExhibit P5 is liable to be quashed and the 4th respondent isliable to reconsider the complaint of the petitioner to passfresh orders giving reasons as to why the petitioner'scomplaint is not maintainable. 3. I have heard the counsel for the respondents 1 and2 as well as the counsel for the 3rd respondent. On areading of Exhibit P5, I am not satisfied that the 4threspondent has discharged his duty properly . In thepetitioner's complaint the 4th respondent is bound to firstfind whether the ECS mandate has been complied with bythe first respondent and if not, the reasons of the Bank issufficient for not complying with that mandate. What theBanking ombudsman has done in this case is simply toquote the version of the Bank and to accept the same 3WP (C) No. 24088 of 2010without giving his reasons for accepting the Bank'sversion and rejecting the contentions of the petitioner. Heis expected to consider the contentions of both and givereasons as to why he accepted the contention of anyone ofthe parties. That has not been done by Exhibit P5.Therefore Exhibit P5 is bad for non application of mindand non-furnishing of reasons by the 4th respondent. Accordingly, Exhibit P5 is quashed. The 4th respondent is directed to pass fresh orders onthe complaint filed by the petitioner after affording anopportunity of being heard to all parties concerned. In hisorder the Banking Ombudsman shall give reasons as towhy he has accepted contention of either party. Freshorders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at anyrate, within a period of two months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this judgment.S.SIRIJAGAN, JUDGE.rkc