UMAKANT CHOURE Vs. BANKING OMBUDSMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER submits that he has made a complaint Annexure P-3 before the Banking Ombudsman appointed under the provisions of Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 1995. The main grievance of the petitioner in the complaint is that he is Counsel representing the Bank. Petitioner has not been paid process fee etc. amounting to Rs. 1200/ -. There is no case pending with respect to process fee, is the submission made in para 16. Certain facts have been averred as to harassment made of the petitioner in the release of FDR against the banking norms. But, that is not the relief claimed in the petition. Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 1995 applies to the Business in India of every Commercial Bank (other than Regional Rural Banks) and Scheduled Primary Co-operative Bank' having a place of business in India, whether such bank is incorporated in India or outside India. The object of the scheme is to enable resolution of complaints relating to provision of banking services and to facilitate the satisfaction, or settlement of such complaints. Prima facie, it does not appear from the reading of the scheme including para 13 that dispute with respect to payment of process fee is such which may be said to be covered by the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 1995. Para 13 is quoted below :-

(2.) SPECIFIC ambit of authority as mentioned in para 13 of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 1995 cannot be expanded to cover in its ambit the dispute between an Advocate and Bank regarding payment of process fees in a case pending before Court. There is authority with the Reserve Bank of India to specify such other matters which may be decided by Ombudsman. The dispute of the kind raised by the petitioner has not been specified by Reserve Bank of India in exercise of power of para 13 (c) to be one which can be decided by an Ombudsman.

(3.) IN my opinion, dispute with respect to non-payment of amount of process fee to Counsel which has been paid in the Court is not covered under para 13 of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 1995. Thus, in my opinion there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Banking Ombudsman in rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner as per Annexure P-4 passed on 21-9-2001. I find no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed.