The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.26017 of 2024 Nirupama Mohanty …. Petitioner Mr.Manoj Kumar Mohanty(2), Advocate -versus- The Office of the Banking Ombudsman, Bhubaneswar and others …. Opposite Parties
Decision
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 19.11.2024 Order No. 03. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that mischief being played by the opposite party No.5 namely- J.B. Panigrahi, Manager, Sai Krishna Residency Homes Ltd., Rath Road, Old Town, Bhubaneswar, a loan was sanctioned by the Manager, Vivekananda Marg Branch, State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar. When the demand for instalment was made by the concerned Bank, the petitioner has raised objection/dispute to the effect that she had never put signature on any document nor did she avail the loan. The petitioner on earlier occasion approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.9453 of 2023 and this Court in Division Bench passed the following order on 01.05.2023:- “This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The second copy of the brief has already been filed. 3. Heard. 4. The present writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the opposite parties to dispose of the reply filed vide Annexure-6 within a stipulated period. 5. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner states that pursuant to the letter/notice the petitioner has already submitted his Page 1 of 4 reply under Annexure-6 before the opposite party no.1 and necessary direction may be issued to the opposite party no.1 to take an appropriate decision on the same within a stipulated period. 6. As agreed by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the writ petition directing Opposite Party No.1 to take an appropriate decision on the reply submitted by the petitioner under Annexure-6 in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.” 3. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved Office of the Reserve Bank of India Ombudsman, Bhubaneswar, who passed the order on 18.08.2023 with the following observation:- “6. Decision of the RBI Ombudsman (RBIO): Both the parties were advised to give in writing their submissions made during the personal hearing, by August 07, 2023. Both the parties have given the written version of their submissions as directed within time. The submissions of both the parties were carefully considered by this Officer. the stipulated It is observed that, (a) According to the complainant, she was not a party to the loan and all her signatures were forged. She was not present while the agreement was signed. She alleges nexus between bank and builder. However according to the bank, the signatures on the documents are genuine, they are of the complainant and that they tallied with the documents given by the complainant in connection with her car loan and savings bank account with the bank. The loan was sanctioned after following due process based on required documents and that the complainant was aware of the loan and present at the branch at the time of sanction. The contentions of both the parties are at complete variance. Resolving the dispute rests on i) determining the genuineness or otherwise of the signature and ii) also determining the presence or absence of the complainant at the branch at the time of processing/sanction of the loan. Both the above points require thorough forensic examination and verification of signatures and examination of witnesses. (b) (c) (d) (e) Page 2 of 4 (f) Verification of signatures is to be done by forensic experts. The Office of the RBI Ombudsman (ORBIO) has no expertise in the process of forensic verification. The ORBIO is neither an investigation Agency nor does the RBIO have investigative powers. Similarly, the RBIO does not have power to examine the witnesses while considering the complainant. The RBIOs shall resolve the complaint based on the documentary evidence submitted before them. Thus, both the actions mentioned at point no. (d) Above for resolution of the dispute are beyond the scope of the RBI Ombudsman Scheme. The ORBIO is therefore not the appropriate forum for resolving this dispute. I, therefore, close this complaint under Clause 16(2)(e) of the Reserve Bank-Integrated Ombudsman Scheme 2021 (RBIOS) as a case „requiring consideration of elaborate documentary and oral evidence and the proceedings before the Ombudsman are not appropriate for adjudication of such complaint‟.” 4. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner craving to quash the aforesaid order of the Ombudsman submitted that the element of fraud is palpably apparent on the material facts available on the record. When the petitioner disputed the signatures being put on the documents available with the Bank, the Ombudsman ought to have investigated into the matter thoroughly and culled out the truth or otherwise of the fact by appropriately dealing with the merit of the case. 5. Mr.Dilip Kumar Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Bank furnished the copy of “Reserve Bank-Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021”, and submitted that the Ombudsman having invoked Paragraph-16(2)(e) ibid. proceeded to reject the complaint made by the petitioner on the ground that “elaborate documentary and oral evidence”. The Ombudsman is justified in refusing to entertain the claim of the petitioner as it is not possible to examine the correctness of the complaint which involves elaborate documentary and oral evidence. Refuting the allegation of the petitioner-complainant, that he has not availed the loan Page 3 of 4 is a myth. The said fact is apparent from a document vide letter dated 29.01.2021 (Annexure-2) addressing the Bank, wherein the petitioner has admitted to have availed the loan facility. 6. Be that as it may, on perusal of record, it seems that disputed questions of facts are involved, which are required to be established by exhaustive evidence to be led by the parties. In view of Paragraph-16 of the Ombudsman Scheme, it appears the Ombudsman is not required to consider elaborate documentary and oral evidence and in the scheme, it is categorically stipulated that the Ombudsman is not the appropriate forum for adjudication of such complaint. 7. In view of the same, this Court refrains from issuing any direction in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is left open for the petitioner to approach appropriate forum to establish the truth or otherwise of the contentions raised herein. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Suchitra (M.S. Raman) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUCHITRA BEHERA Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 19-Nov-2024 17:56:03 Page 4 of 4