The Banking Ombudsman cannot entertain complaints exceeding ten lakh rupees in value, and any award beyond this limit is without jurisdiction and thus invalid.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are the respondents in a complaint preferred by the 1st respondent before the Banking Ombudsman (3rd respondent) appointed under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as '2006 Scheme') issued by the Reserve Bank of India.

2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of issues arising for consideration in this Writ Petition are as follows:

The 2nd respondent was the husband of the 1st respondent.

They are now stated to be divorced. While both of them were working abroad, the 1st respondent made two Foreign Currency Non-Resident (FCNR) Deposits for the benefit of the minor son of respondents 1 and 2. Both these deposits were made on 06.04.2002 for a period of three years. The amounts in the deposit were for a total sum of US Dollars $19,050. These deposits were renewed from time to time. It appears from the reply filed by the petitioners before the Banking Ombudsman that in the year 2005, the deposits were renewed for a further period of three years. However, on 08.09.2006, the deposits were closed and renewed for a period of one year and one day in the name of minor son so as to attain maturity on 09.09.2007. The amounts were shown as deposited by the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, this was done on the basis of the request of the 1st respondent. The deposits were thereafter renewed from time to time. According to the petitioners, on 14.10.2008, the deposits were renewed for a period of one year and one day in the name of the 2nd respondent with the minor son being the nominee of the deposits. It is admitted that the said deposit was on the basis of the oral instructions and as requested by the 2nd respondent. It appears that on 19.01.2009, the deposits were closed and the amount that was available was treated as a deposit in the name of one Sabu Koshy as per a request issued by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the deposits were closed on 04.02.2009 and an amount of US Dollars $ 25201.73 including the interest on the deposited amount was repatriated.

3. On the instructions of the 1st respondent Ext.P2 lawyer notice was issued on 19.07.2009 seeking the status of the fixed deposits. It appears that by this time, the relationship between the 1st and 2nd respondents had soured and there were proceedings for divorce pending between them. In Ext.P2 lawyer notice, it is stated that despite the 1st respondent having requested the bank for details of the fixed deposits from the year 2005 onwards, no satisfactory reply had been given by the bank. After the issuance of Ext.P2, the 1st respondent also issued Ext.R1-E notice seeking the release of the amounts in deposit to her. Ext.R1-E notice is dated 13.08.2011. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed Ext.P3 complaint before the Banking Ombudsman. The petitioners filed Exts.P4, P4(a) and P4(b) replies raising various contentions including the plea that the complaint before the Banking Ombudsman was not maintainable under the 2006 Scheme for the reason that the complaint is barred by the limitation in terms of Clause 9 of the 2006 Scheme and that the relief claimed in the complaint was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Banking Ombudsman in terms of the provisions contained in Clause 12 read with provisions of Clause 13 of 2006 Scheme. On consideration of the matter, the Banking Ombudsman issued Ext.P5 Award overruling the objections taken by the bank and directing the bank to pay to the 1st respondent the maturity proceeds of the amount that was in deposit along with interest up to the date of payment. The bank preferred Ext.P6 appeal before the Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Authority rejected the