IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24088 of 2010(I)
1. PHILIP SAM, AGED 49,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
3. HDFC BANK LTD. (RETAIL ASSET
4. THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SHAIJAN JOSEPH
For Respondent :SRI.T.RAJESH, SC, HDFC BANK LTD.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :02/08/2010
O R D E R
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 is
running educational institutions. He is holding an
account with the first respondent. He had availed a
vehicle loan from the 3rd respondent Bank. For payment of
the installment amounts of that loan the petitioner has
issued an ECS mandate to the respondents 1 and 2 for
payment from out of his account. The mandate has been
accepted by respondents 1 and 2 and the 3rd respondent.
Alleging that ECS mandate has not been properly
complied with, the petitioner approached the Banking
ombudsman, the 4th respondent herein. After obtaining
the version of the Bank and stating the reasons mentioned
by the first respondent Bank therein, the Banking
Ombudsman finally rejected the complaint of the
petitioner in the following words:-
2
WP (C) No. 24088 of 2010
“Considering the details of the complaint and the Bank’s
version, no case of deficiency of service as alleged against
South Indian Bank is substantiate. HDFC Bank has also
reimbursed charges of Rs.454/- levied to the complainant’s
loan account”.
2. The petitioner’s grievance is that this is not proper
consideration by the Banking ombudsman and therefore
Exhibit P5 is liable to be quashed and the 4th respondent is
liable to reconsider the complaint of the petitioner to pass
fresh orders giving reasons as to why the petitioner’s
complaint is not maintainable.
3. I have heard the counsel for the respondents 1 and
2 as well as the counsel for the 3rd respondent. On a
reading of Exhibit P5, I am not satisfied that the 4th
respondent has discharged his duty properly . In the
petitioner’s complaint the 4th respondent is bound to first
find whether the ECS mandate has been complied with by
the first respondent and if not, the reasons of the Bank is
sufficient for not complying with that mandate. What the
Banking ombudsman has done in this case is simply to
quote the version of the Bank and to accept the same
3
WP (C) No. 24088 of 2010
without giving his reasons for accepting the Bank’s
version and rejecting the contentions of the petitioner. He
is expected to consider the contentions of both and give
reasons as to why he accepted the contention of anyone of
the parties. That has not been done by Exhibit P5.
Therefore Exhibit P5 is bad for non application of mind
and non-furnishing of reasons by the 4th respondent.
Accordingly, Exhibit P5 is quashed.
The 4th respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on
the complaint filed by the petitioner after affording an
opportunity of being heard to all parties concerned. In his
order the Banking Ombudsman shall give reasons as to
why he has accepted contention of either party. Fresh
orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any
rate, within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
S.SIRIJAGAN,
JUDGE.
rkc