AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Petitioner was called upon by respondent No. 2, to remit the sum outstanding in his credit card Account No. 4346781000354399/HDFC Bank Account No. 01401330002866, vide notice dated 09.10.2009, as at Annexure-A. Petitioner having sent a reply notice dated 30.11.2009 vide Annexure-B, the 3rd respondent got an advocate''s reply sent to the petitioner on 11.12.2009 vide Annexure-C. Petitioner having submitted a complaint dated 24.12.2009 vide Annexure-D to the 1st respondent and the petitioner having been notified of the decision on the said complaint by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-E, this writ petition was filed to quash Annexure-E and grant consequential reliefs. Sri Venkatesh P. Dalwai, learned advocate contended that the 1st respondent has acted arbitrarily and illegally in the matter of consideration of the complaint vide Annexure-D and in sending the communication as at Annexure-E. He submitted that an enquiry having not been held by the 1st respondent, the impugned decision being opposed to the principles of natural justice, the order at Annexure-E being vitiated, interference is warranted.
Sri Amit Deshpande, learned advocate for respondents 2 & 3, on the other hand contended that the complaint vide Annexure-D having not been filed in accordance with sub-clause (3) of Clause 9 of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 (for short, ''the scheme'') and also being not on the grounds of complaint referred to in Clause 8 of the Scheme, the 1st respondent is justified in rejecting the complaint vide Annexure-D i.e., in terms of the communication as at Annexure-E. He submitted that, in the circumstances of the case, no interference in the matter is warranted.
The Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 has been introduced with the object of enabling resolution of complaints relating to certain services rendered by banks and to facilitate the satisfaction or settlement of such complaints. Chapter IV of the Scheme contains the provisions relating to ''procedure for redressal of grievance''. Clause 8 thereunder is relating to ''grounds of complaint''. Clause 9 is with regard to the ''procedure for filing complaint''. Clause 10 empowers a Banking Ombudsman to call for information for the purpose of carrying out his duties under the Scheme. Clause 13 is with regard to ''rejection of complaint'' by the Banking Ombudsman at any stage, if it appears to him that the ''complaint is made, (a) not on the ground/s of complaint referred to in Clause 8 or otherwise, not in accordance with sub clause (3) of clause 9 or other aspects shown in sub-clauses (b) to (f) therein. Clause 14 provides for an appeal before the Appellate Authority as against the impugned Award made under Clause 12 or rejection of a complaint for the reasons referred to in sub-clauses (d) to (f) of Clause 13, within a period of 30 days.
Petitioner''s complaint having been received and a copy thereof having been endorsed to the HDFC Bank, the Banking Ombudsman has declined to interfere in recovery matters by treating the complaint as dealt under Clause 13(a) (not under his purview) of the Scheme.
Sri V.P. Dalwai, when questioned, as to whether the petitioner had, before making the complaint vide Annexure-D to the 1st respondent, made a written representation to the bank, conceded that the petitioner did not make any complaint to respondents 2 and 3. Learned counsel submitted that the legal notice as at Annexure-B may be construed as the representation to the bank. I do not find merit in the submission. Annexure-B is a reply through the advocate of the petitioner i.e., to the notice of demand of the bank vide Annexure-A. In the circumstances, Annexure-B cannot be construed as a representation in writing by the petitioner.
Sub-clause (3) of Clause 9 mandates that, no complaint to the Banking Ombudsman shall lie unless (a) the complainant had, before making a complaint to the Banking Ombudsman, made a written representation to the bank and the bank had rejected the complaint or the complainant had not received any reply within a period of one month after the bank received his representation or the complainant is not satisfied with the reply given to him by the bank. The petitioner having not submitted the complaint after complying with the requirements stipulated in the Scheme, the 1st respondent is justified in rejecting the complaint made vide Annexure-D. No fault can be found with the action of the 1st respondent, since the petitioner, in the matter of filing of complaint vide Annexure-D, has not acted in terms of the provisions, noticed supra, made in the Scheme. Consequently, no interference with Annexure-E is warranted.
In the result, writ petition is rejected with no order as to costs.