IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.14778 OF 2013 & 14779-14781 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. N. KUSHALRAJ AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE G. NEMICHAND.
2. N. INDERCHAND AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O LATE G. NEMICHAND.
3. PAVAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O LATE G. NEMICHAND.
4. NIRMAL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE G. NEMICHAND.
ALL ARE R/A #16 MYGUNDADEVA MUDALIAR ROAD FRASER TOWN, BENGALOORU 560005.
(BY SRI. G.M. SHARATH KUMAR, ADV., FOR SRI. G.S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV.,) AND:
… PETITIONERS 1. THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN (KARNATAKA) RESERVE BANK OF INDIA BUILDING 10/3/8, II FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALOORU 560001.
2. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA MALLESHWARAM BRANCH 100-107, JAYAM SHOPPING CENTRE SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BENGALOORU 560003 REP. BY ITS SR. BRANCH MANAGER.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SURESH D. DESHPANDE, ADV., FOR R2; R1 SERVED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED LETTER DT.15.1.2013 (ANNX--H) ISSUED BY THE R. DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION DT.1.9.2010(ANNX-F) AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.G.M.Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for Sri.G.S.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri.Suresh D. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
The petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In these petitions, the petitioners have assailed the validity of order dated 15.01.2013 passed by the Banking Ombudsman, Benglauru by which an application submitted by the petitioners has been rejected in view of Clause 13(c) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of the writ petitions briefly stated are that the petitioners had availed loan facility from respondent No.2 – Bank. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.2 has recovered excess of compound interest, the amount of term loan and enhanced interest which amounts to Rs.32,40,428/-. The petitioners thereupon filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman, Benglauru, and the Banking Ombudsman, Benglauru has rejected the complaint submitted by the petitioners.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the records.
5. From perusal of the records, it is evident that the Banking Ombudsman, Bengaluru has rejected the complaint of the petitioners in view of Clause 13(c) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006, which order reads as under:
“Your Complaint against Malleshwaram branch of Central Bank of India CTS No - 201213002001565 Please refer to your complaint dated December 12, 2012 against the captioned bank.
From the complaint it is observed that the loan applied/sanctioned in the year 2006 requires consideration of elaborate documentary and oral evidence. As such, we are unable to proceed further in the matter in terms of Clause 13(c) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006, the contents of which is as under:
“13. The Banking Ombudsman may reject a complaint at any stage if it appears to him that the complaint made is:
(c) Requiring consideration of elaborate documentary and oral evidence and the proceedings before the Banking Ombudsman are not appropriate for adjudication of such complaint.”
We also advise that the above decision of the Banking Ombudsman is not appealable.
You may also note that this office is only an optional forum, and you may, if you so desire, approach any other complaint redressal forum of your choice.
This is issued as per the orders of the Banking Ombudsman.”
6. Thus, it is evident that the complaint made by the petitioners requires consideration of elaborate documentary and oral evidence on record, which is not permissible under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006. Therefore, complaint of the petitioners has rightly been rejected. The order passed by Banking Ombudsman, Benglauru neither suffers from any jurisdictional error nor any infirmity warranting the interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, the petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to them under the law.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-