IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 4781 of 2011(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ MRS. HELEN BRITTO, W/O.CYRIL BRITTO, RESIDING AT POMPOZHIYIL HOUSE, CMC 111, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER CYRIL BRITTO, S/O. CONTAD BRITTO, CMC III, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO RESPONDENT: --------------------- 1. THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN (KERALA AND THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP & MAHE) RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PERUMANOOR (COCHIN SHIPYARD) BRANCH, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI - 682 016. 3. THE NODAL OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM R2 BY ADV. SATHISH NINAN, SC, SBT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 4781 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------ DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF JUNE, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext.P17 communication dated 28-01-2011, whereby Ext.P16 compliant preferred by the petitioner before the 1st respondent has been returned without entertaining the same, referring to some proceedings already dealt with by the Court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the idea and understanding of the 1st respondent as to the grievance of the petitioner and the alleged proceedings is quite wrong and misconceived, in so far as the issue involved has not been considered by any court of law and the grievance has necessarily to be dealt with and redressed by the 1st respondent in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Bank as well. The learned counsel the the petitioner submits that the observation made in Ext.P17 is not correct or proper and that the petitioner has given necessary declaration before the 1st respondent in the prescribed format, as discernible from Ext.P16 itself, which is not controverted by the Bank. The W.P (C) No.4781/2011 -2- learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Bank also conceded that the issue has never been considered any court of law. 4. In the above circumstances, rejection of the complaint preferred by the complainant vide Ext.P16 is held as wrong. Accordingly, Ext.P17 is set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to accept Ext.P16 and deal with the same passing appropriate orders in accordance with law, after hearing both the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible. Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent. No costs. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. AMG True copy P.A to Judge