Full Text
W.P.(C) 13841/2021
Date of Decision: 03.03.2023 IN THE MATTER OF:
JUDGMENT
1. MOHIT MITTAL S/o Dr. Virendar Kumar Mittal
2. DR. V.K. MITTAL S/o Mr. Devi Ram Mittal
3. BHAWNA MITTAL D/o Dr. Virendar Kumar Mittal All Residents of 7-B, M.S. Flats Swasthya Vihar, Delhi-110092 ……PETITIONERS Through: Mr. Mohit Mittal, P-1 in Person.
VERSUS
1. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA 6, Sansad Marg, Delhi-110001 Email: rdnewdelhi@rbi.org.in Tel: 011-23325225
2. THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, BO NEW DELHI III C/O RBI, 6, Sansad Marg, Delhi Email: cms.bonewdelhi3@rbi.org.in Tel: 011-23725445
3. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Plot No.4, Sector-10, Dwarka New Delhi-110075 Email: care@pnb.co.in Tel No: 011-28044907 …..RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma and Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan, Advocates for R-1 and 2. Mr. S.K.Tanwar, Advocate for R-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioners have preferred this petition with the following prayers: -
RBI to issue strict guidelines to all the banks to provide such basic information to customers mandatorily and within a specified reasonable time frame.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they are having their saving bank account with Punjab National Bank (PNB), Preet Vihar branch, Delhi. The petitioners requested PNB Bank to furnish copies of documents (cheque) or mandate of any other document signed by the petitioner, based on which, the bank has made the debit of Rs. 97,771.20/- and Rs.97,833.62/-. The petitioners also requested the bank to furnish a copy of any mandate that the bank has received for the petitioners’ bank account in the last 6-7 years. According to petitioners, several letters and oral requests were made to the bank, however, the bank did not provide any satisfactory information.
3. Since the petitioners’ letters and requests were not being considered, therefore, they approached the Banking Ombudsman designated by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). In terms of impugned communications dated 25.10.2021 and 27.10.2021, the Banking Ombudsman has also closed the complaint made by the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners have approached this court with the reliefs as has been reproduced in the preceding paragraph.
4. Respondent No. 3- bank has filed its counter affidavit. A perusal of the same would indicate that the transaction was done in favour of PNB METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD by the petitioners and the said payment was made online by the petitioners. It is further stated in the aforesaid counter affidavit that the petitioners have availed policy from PNB METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD and gave a mandate dated 23.02.2015 for deducting the premium through ECS and, therefore, the bank had nothing to do with the said transaction. The bank has placed on record a copy of the mandate, which was made available by PNB METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. In paragraph 17 of the said counter-affidavit/ reply it is stated that there is no signed document as the transaction was done by PNB METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. According to respondent No.3-bank, there was no violation of RBI guidelines.
5. Respondent Nos. 1-RBI and respondent No. 2- Banking Ombudsman, RBI has also filed their counter affidavit and states that the Ombudsman scheme has been introduced by the RBI in the exercise of power under Section 35A of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. According to RBI, the complaints made by the petitioners were the subject matter of adjudication by the Banking Ombudsman, which has been dealt with accordingly. It is stated that once the Banking Ombudsman has already decided on the complaint, there is no reason to continue with the present petition against the RBI and accordingly, the instant writ petition should be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
7. The order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the Ombudsman would indicate that the complaint filed by the petitioners was examined by the Banking Ombudsman. The bank was called upon to respond to the complaint and on the basis of the statement made by the bank that no debit mandate was found for the account number of the petitioners between 01.01.2014 to 07.10.2021 and there was no unusual debit found in her account therefore, the Banking Ombudsman did not find any reason to continue the same and accordingly, the same was closed.
8. Another order dated 27.10.2021 passed by the Banking Ombudsman is perused and the same would also indicate that the debits which were objected by the petitioners were related to the PNB METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
9. Having examined the complaint made by the petitioners and the response received from the concerned bank, the Banking Ombudsman vide order dated 27.10.2021 notes that the reason for the debit of the amount was duly intimated to the petitioners, therefore, there was no reason to continue with the complaint.
10. Since the Banking Ombudsman has already decided the complaint filed by the petitioners and the bank has also explained that there was no mandate available with the bank, this court does not find any reason to continue with the instant writ petition and to take forward the issue raised by the petitioners in the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Under the facts of the present case, this court finds that various disputed questions of facts are involved, which normally should not be adjudicated by writ court. The petitioners have other remedies available.
11. Needless to state that if the petitioners have any grievance, they are at liberty to take up appropriate proceedings in accordance with law before an appropriate forum.
12. Leaving all questions open, the instant petition stands disposed of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J MARCH 3, 2023 nc