Back
2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 9251
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
MRS HELEN BRITTO – Appellant
Versus
THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, (KERALA AND THE – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 31232/2011
Depositors' lack of specific instructions regarding fund management means banks can act based on existing guidelines without facing liability.
Headnote:
Banking - Ombudsman - Award Dismissal - No Wilful Deficiency Found
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the Banking Ombudsman's order regarding a claim for interest on a deposit made in 1995 and withdrawn in 2003, after the Ombudsman found no fault by the bank.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the Ombudsman's finding that the bank acted correctly per guidelines since no instructions were provided for the deposit's renewal or disposal, thus showing no wilful deficiency.
Issues: Whether the Banking Ombudsman's decision regarding the handling of a deposit and interest claim was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that without specific instructions from the depositor or court, the bank acted appropriately and therefore there was no basis to contest the Ombudsman's decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
The grievance in this writ petition is regarding Ext.P20, an order passed by the Banking Ombudsman in so far as it concerns the claim of the petitioner for interest of `2.5 lakhs, which was deposited in 1995 and withdrawn in 2003.
2. A reading of Ext.P20, the award of the Ombudsman shows that on appreciation of the rival contentions, it has entered into the following finding:-
“As there was no direction from the court or from the depositor named in the receipt or from the complainant for renewal or mode of disposal of maturity proceeds, the bank had no option but to transfer the amount of principal (Viz., Rs.5.00 lakh) with interest accrued to Deposit at Call account as per their Had Office instructions in force at that time. A Deposit at Call is in the nature of a non-interest bearing current account. The bank stated this was WPC No.31232/11 :2 :
done as they had no clue as to when the case would be disposed of by the court and when they would be advised to pay the proceeds to beneficiaries to be named by the court.”
It was on the above basis the Ombudsman came to a finding that it was not satisfied that there was any wilful deficiency or lapse on the part of the Bank.
3. There is nothing on record to indicate that the aforesaid factual findings arrived at by the Ombudsman is incorrect. If that be so, I see absolutely no reason to interfere with Ext.P20 award to the extent it is objected.
Writ petition is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp
