Dr. Promilla Butani vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr on 20 July, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Dr. Promilla Butani vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr on 20 July, 2022

1. The Petitioner [hereinafter "Applicant"] impugns the decision taken by the Banking Ombudsman dated 10th December, 2021 [hereinafter "impugned decision"] whereby he has rejected the complaint of the Applicant (Complaint No. 202122006014467) under Clause 13(a) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 [hereinafter "Scheme of 2006"]. The said decision reads as follows: -

"Complaint No. 202122006014467 against Standard Chartered Bank- Closure Intimation.

Please refer to the captioned complaint against the bank

2. On taking up the issue with the bank they have replied the following  The customer had disputed the transactions, which were incurred in her Credit Card on May 19th, 2021  The transactions are secured in nature, processed post successful validation of the OTP which was sent to the registered mobile number  20.05.2021 The customer had contacted Phone Banking and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI W.P.(C) 4535/2022 Page 1 of 5 Signing Date:21.07.2022 19:25:10 blocked the Card permanently  In the interim of the investigation temporary card was provisioned  The disputed transactions were processed with two-factor authentications. The card details and OTP are validated  Further, the OTP log was retrieved and noted that the transaction was successful post validation of the OTP  The OTP alert log indicates the OTP validation status as successful  The disputed transactions happened before the issue was reported to the Bank  The transactions incurred post compromising the card credentials.  The bank has revoked the temporary credits provided aa the customer is liable towards the disputed transactions  The bank had apprised the customer on the same through the responses sent on July 14, 2021, July 20, 2021, and August 17, 2021

3. Hence, your complaint has been rejected under Clause 13(a) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006 (Scheme), which reads as under:

"The Banking Ombudsman may reject a complaint at any stage if it appears to him that the complaint made is not on the grounds of complaint referred to in clause 8 of the Scheme".

4. We advise for your information and guidance that a complaint closed under the above clause is not appealable. However, you are free to approach Consumer Forum or any legal authority in accordance with law for redressal of your grievance.

This is issued as per the order of the RBI Ombudsman.

Yours faithfully Sd/-

p. Banking Ombudsman"

2. Mr. Arun Batta, counsel for the Applicant, without going into the merits of the case, states that matter be remanded as the Banking Ombudsman did not afford any reasonable opportunity to the Applicant to present her case. The same is apparent from a bare perusal of the impugned decision which rejects the complaint of the Applicant without disclosing any reason(s)/ground(s) therein. In support his submissions, Mr. Batta places reliance on decisions taken by the High Court of Calcutta in Sandip Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI W.P.(C) 4535/2022 Page 2 of 5 Signing Date:21.07.2022 19:25:10 Chatterjee v. The Banking Ombudsman & Anr.,1 and Ganesh Agarwal v. Office of the Banking Ombudsman and Ors.2

3. The Court has heard the submissions advanced by Mr. Batta. At this stage, it can be noticed that the impugned decision only states that the complaint is rejected with the observations as under: -

"3. Hence, your complaint has been rejected under Clause 13(a) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006 (Scheme), which reads as under:

The Banking Ombudsman may reject a complaint at any stage if it appears to him that the complaint made is not on the grounds of complaint referred to in clause 8 of the Scheme"

4. The afore-noted decision is cryptic and vague and does not disclose any reason for rejection of the complaint, except for mentioning the provision. That apart, it also does not record that opportunity of hearing granted to Applicant. Although Mr. Batta has relied upon Clause 12(1) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme for Digital Transactions, 2019 [hereinafter "Scheme of 2019"], however, the same provision is inapplicable. Clause 12 would be attracted to cases where an 'AWARD' is made and in the present case, the Banking Ombudsman has rejected the complaint. The procedure for 'REJECTION OF THE COMPLIANT' is stipulated under Clause 13 of the Scheme of 2019. The said Clause 13 stipulates that the Ombudsman, may, at any stage of the proceedings, reject a complaint however, reason(s) for rejection must be disclosed in the decision/order, however brief they may be. Besides, granting a reasonable opportunity is 1 W.P. 1122/2014 dated 09th December, 2014.

W.P. No. 803/2006 dated 04th July, 2006.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI W.P.(C) 4535/2022 Page 3 of 5 Signing Date:21.07.2022 19:25:10

also necessary to come to a just and proper decision. In the instant case, after calling for the response from Respondent No. 2-Bank, the Banking Ombudsman proceeded to reject the complaint, without seeking any clarification from the Applicant. On these two grounds, the impugned decision does not meet the requirements of well-established principles of natural justice and accordingly, is set-aside. The concerned Banking Ombudsman is directed to afford an opportunity to the Applicant to present her case and thereafter, pass an appropriate decision/order giving reasons, in accordance with law. For the same, the concerned Banking Ombudsman is granted a period of three weeks from today.

5. It is clarified that the Court has not examined the merits of the case and the concerned Banking Ombudsman shall decide the complaint of the Applicant uninfluenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

6. Before parting, it must be noted that the Applicant, pursuant to the Order dated 21st March, 2022, deposited 50% of Rs. 90,205/- with the Registrar General of this Court as a pre-condition for grant of protection to the Applicant against coercive steps. In view of the fore-going directions, the Court considers it appropriate to direct the Registry to forthwith release the said amount deposited by the Petitioner/Applicant. Respondent No. 2- Bank is free to take appropriate step(s) qua the amount in question, in accordance with law and subject to the outcome of the fresh decision to be taken by the concerned Banking Ombudsman in terms of the above directions.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI W.P.(C) 4535/2022 Page 4 of 5 Signing Date:21.07.2022 19:25:10

7. The present petition is disposed of along with other pending application.

SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 20, 2022 d.negi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI W.P.(C) 4535/2022 Page 5 of 5 Signing Date:21.07.2022 19:25:10

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders