IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24088 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- PHILIP SAM, AGED 49, S/O.KORALA SAMUEL, PALATHADATHIL HOUSE, NORTH PUKKATTUPADY, EDATHALA P.O., ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SHAIJAN JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., ALUVA BRANCH, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, R.S.SQUARE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SOUTH INDIAN BANK HEAD OFFICE, THRISSUR. 3. HDFC BANK LTD. (RETAIL ASSET OPERATIONS), 26-A NARAYAN PROPERTIES, OFF-SAKI VIHAR ROAD, CHANDIVALL, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI-400 072. 4. THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 033. R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH, SC, HDFC BANK LTD. ADV.SRI. GEORGE VARGHESE, SC, SI BANK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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