IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2009 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 1798 of 2009(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.G.VARGHESE, PROPRIETOR, M/S.ADARSH MILLS COIR MILLS, PB.NO.52, VENJARA ROAD, ALAPPUZHA-688 001, RESIDING AT PANJICKAL HOUSE, VADACKAL, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. MR.B.PRAMOD, MR.GEORGE MATHEWS. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. BANKING OMBUDSMAN FOR KERALA AND THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH KABEER PLAZA, CCSB ROAD, MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. R2 BY ADV. MR.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.1798/2009 L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF LIST OF BILLS SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER ALONG WITH EXT.P2 COMPLAINT. P2: COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD. 1/07/008 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 21/12/2007 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 25/08/2008 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF PASSBOOK RELATING TO THE PETITIONER'S ACCOUNT IN THE 2ND RESPONDENT BANK. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).1798/2009 ....................... Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is engaged in the sale of coir products. He availed a cash credit facility from the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, the mode of business was to send the products by carriers to the buyers who will collect them by submitting bills. According to the petitioner, certain bills were dishonoured. But there was undue delay on the part of Bank to intimate the same to the petitioner. Ext.P2 complaint was filed before the Banking Ombudsman. 2. In the meanwhile, on account of default on the part of the petitioner in paying amounts which fell due under the cash credit facility, proceedings under the Securitisation Act were initiated. 3. Taking note of one of the prayers made in the complaint before the Ombudsman for remission of interest and to restrain initiation of proceedings under the Securitisation Act, Ombudsman rejected the complaint that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on W.P.(C).1798/09 2 merits. This is under challenge in the writ petition. 4. Though there is a prayer made in Ext.P2 complaint for remission of interest, the Ombudsman need only to consider the alternate prayer for a direction to pay compensation. To that extent the complaint is maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has given up the prayer for remission of interest. In these circumstances, matter may be reconsidered by the Ombudsman. 5. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is set aside. 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P2 afresh and pass orders after notice to the Bank. Objection on the part of the Bank regarding the maintainability of the complaint and also as regards the merits of the same are left open to be separately urged before the said forum. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs