IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25083 of 2004(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------ P.G.PARAMESWSARAN NAIR, AGED 71 S/O.M.P.KESAVA PILLAI, 14, 2014, P.K. PILLAI ROAD, KARUVELIPPADY, KOCHI : 682 005. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FIROZ C.S. ULLAS RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, KOCHI MAIN BRANCH, 6/345, BAZAR ROAD, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-2, REP: BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, RESERVE BANK BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25083 of 2004(J) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.12.1990 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.10.2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.3.2001 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED, 25.11.2002 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.12.2002 SENT TO IST RESPONDENT BY PETITIONER. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED, 14.3.2003 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED, 12.12.2003 FILED BEFORE BANKING OMBUDSMAN. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED, 7.1.2004 RECEIVED FROM ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BANKING OMBUDSMAN. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. LEG.VBN.3649/92 DATED 19.5.1992. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE rhs S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.25083 of 2004 ================== Dated this the 5th day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner filed an application before the 2nd respondent, Banking Ombudsman complaining of deficiency in service by the 1st respondent Bank. On receipt of the complaint, the petitioner has been issued with Ext.P8 communication to the following effect: “This has reference to your above complaint. On taking up the matter with the bank they have informed us that the sale proceeds were adjusted towards the dues of your loan accounts as per the terms of provisions of the decree. As there is no deficiency in service on the part of the bank we have decided to treat your compliant as closed.” The petitioner challenges the same. I am not going into merits of the contentions of the parties in this case, since I am of opinion that even otherwise Ext.P8 order is not what is expected of the Banking Ombudsman in such cases. When a compliant is received by the Ombudsman it cannot be disposed of merely on the basis of a report from the bank. For doing that an Ombudsman is not necessary in between. The petitioner can take up the matter with bank themselves and get an order. The Banking W.P(C)No.25083 of 2004 - 2 - Ombudsman is an independent authority who is expected to decide the matter after hearing both sides, considering merits of the contentions of both parties. It is also necessary that the Banking Ombudsman himself issues the order, instead of an Assistant Secretary issuing a communication to the petitioner. The proceedings of the Banking Ombudsman shall be signed by the Ombudsman himself, a copy of which shall be communicated to the parties. None of the above basic requirements have been complied with while issuing Ext.P8. Ext.P8 is therefore clearly unsustainable. Accordingly, Ext.P8 is quashed and the 2nd respondent, Banking Ombudsman is directed to hear the matter afresh, after affording an opportunity to both sides and pass a reasoned order considering the comparative merits of both parties on the contentions raised. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs