S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

1. The 1st respondent filed a complaint under clause 16 (3) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) against the Bank claiming damages for business loss amounting to Rupees One Crore; compensation for mental agony amounting to Rs.5 lakhs; loss on account of credit by the bank in the accounts and excess interest to the extent of Rs.12 lakhs; LIC loss at Rs.4 lakhs and cost of the petition of Rs.5,000/-. The 2nd respondent, Banking Ombudsman, by order dated 17th Nov., 1997, held that it could not proceed in the matter as the Bank had already moved the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) for recovery of its debts. The said order was challenged by the 1st respondent in W.P. No.3645/98, which was allowed by learned single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 18th April, 2002, and directed the Banking Ombudsman to expedite the complaint filed by the 1st respondent-writ petitioner by giving sufficient opportunity to submit supporting materials and personal hearing.

The main plea taken by the appellant-Bank is that the 1st respondent borrower cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wron