Appalled
at the "high-handed approach" of the RBI ombudsman in a complaint
against a bank, the Delhi High Court has said the Ombudsman Scheme cannot be
reduced to a tantalising promise as it bridges the gap between the regulated
entities, such as banks or NBFCs etc, and the consumers "meandering for
justice".
The
court said the scheme seeks to achieve a cost-effective and speedy resolution
of the complaints of consumers against regulated entities and the ombudsman is
duty bound to pass a reasoned order to foster greater transparency and
confidence in the process.
The
court was hearing a plea by the petitioner who was aggrieved by the manner in
which the ombudsman rejected its complaint against a private bank without
passing a detailed order.
The
court noted that under the Reserve Bank- Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021, the
ombudsman is required to consider the complaint of customers of regulated
entities relating to deficiencies in services while adhering to the principle
of natural justice, and in this case, it did not deal with any of the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner/complainant while dismissing the
complaint.
It
said the designation of an ombudsman under the aegis of the RBI was
"especially useful" as he is the person who understands the business
of banking and is entrusted to carry out quasi-judicial functions with utmost
diligence in accordance with the extant regulations.
"It
is, however, appalling to see a high-handed approach of the Ombudsman in
facilitating resolution of complaints pertaining to services rendered by the
bank in the instant case. If such an authority passes an order without
assigning any reasons, defying the statutory mandate and principles of natural
justice, it would only erode public trust in its functioning and consequently,
undermine the democratic values," said Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
in a recent order.
"The
Ombudsman Scheme, which seeks to achieve an earnest, cost-effective and speedy
resolution of the complaints of consumers against the regulated entities,
cannot be reduced to a tantalizing promise as it bridges the gap between the
regulated entities and countless individuals meandering for justice," it
added.
The
court further said the ombudsman was required to pass a detailed order after
dealing with the submissions made by the complainant and also after providing
sufficient opportunity of hearing to the respective parties, and any empty
formality deserves to be weeded out.
Since
no explanation or grounds were provided by the ombudsman for the rejection in
this case, the court said it only amounted to a mechanical acceptance of the
stand taken by the bank. It set aside the rejection order and remitted the
matter back to the ombudsman for fresh consideration in accordance with law.