Disputed questions of facts should not be adjudicated by the writ court, and petitioners should seek other remedies.

JUDGMENT :

[Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.]

1. The petitioners have preferred this petition with the following prayers: -

“A. Set aside the impugned order dated 25th October, 2021 (Annexure P10) in complaint No. 202122022004133 and dated 27th October 2021 (Annexure P11) in complaint No. 202122022004132 of Respondent No.2, the banking Ombudsman, BO New Delhi III.

B. Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.2

i) to investigate the said transactions in the PNB bank account of Petitioners.

ii) to direct the PNB bank to provide a copy of signed documents based on which said transactions were authorized and money was debited from the bank

iii) To provide a copy of all mandates including Mandate with Ref No. PUNB0000000009649259, that PNB has received for Petitioner’s bank accounts.

C. Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.1, RBI to issue strict guidelines to all the banks to provide such basic information to customers mandatorily and within a specified reasonable time frame.

D. Pass an order directing Respondent No.3 to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for damages on account of mental harassment and legal expenses incurred due to negligent act and deficiency in service on the part of Respondent No.3.”

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