KAMAL CHAND JAIN Vs. BANKING OMBUDSMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The refusal on the part of the Banking Ombudsman to proceed with the complaint preferred by the petitioner, is the subject-matter of this writ-petition. The brief facts for the purpose of this petition be noticed.

(2.) According to the petitioner his entire business, stock, furniture and even domestic appliances were lost in a fire. The petitioner submits that the Andhra Bank, Kampoo Road, Gwalior was requested to give financial assistance. An application was submitted in the month of September, 1993. According to the petitioner as action was not taken, he preferred a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman. This has not been looked note for. reason indicated in the order (Annexure-P/1). The reason given is a suit stands filed by the Bank on the same subject matter. Recovery of amount advanced to the petitioner is sought to be made.

(3.) Notice of motion was issued Appearance has been put on behalf of Andhra Bank. In addition to the reasons given in Annexure-P/1, one more objection has been taken. This objection is to the effect that complaint in terms of para 16(3)(a) of the scheme framed by Reserve Bank of India, copy whereof is Annexure-P/6, has not been made. It is further submitted that the complaint which was made in September, 1993 cannot be looked into. This is because it is barred by limitation of one year. Reliance has been placed on sub-clause (b) of the same clause referred to above. This is another provision in sub-clause (d). It is to the effect that if the subject-matter of this complaint is the same regarding which any of the authorities referred to therein then the same would not be entertained by Ombudsman. Para 16(3) is relevant and is quoted :-