Even though the complainant had no business relationship with ABC bank, he was getting calls/SMSes from the recovery agents, who used abusive language and demanded repayment of some loans which he had never taken. His several complaints to the bank against these harassment calls had no effect. The bank pleaded to the banking ombudsman that the telephone numbers from which the complainant was getting the abusive calls did not belong to any of its recovery agents. Based on this, the ombudsman closed the case under Clause 13(d) of BO Scheme (that is, complaint without any sufficient cause). As the complainant continued to get the harassment calls, he went on appeal.

During the appeal, the bank admitted that the phone numbers did belong to the recovery agents and it had since taken necessary corrective action to discontinue such calls. The Appellant Authority (AA) observed that the bank had not conducted proper due diligence while sanctioning the loan to some third person indicating a major KYC lapse.

To cap it all, the bank had misguided the ombudsman resulting in the latter pronouncing a wrong order, damaging the credibility of the BOS. The AA set aside the decision of the ombudsman and directed the bank to pay the appellant Rs 1 lakh towards compensation.

Non-honouring of bank guarantees : The High Court of Jabalpur directed the banking ombudsman to consider the issues raised by Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur about non-honouring of bank guarantees by a bank, despite the same not being covered under the BO scheme.

The bank submitted that the guarantee was not invoked as per the terms and conditions of the guarantee document.

However, the BO observed that the guarantee was invoked as per the terms and conditions specified in the guarantee agreement and the same could have been paid by the bank without demur. Accordingly, ombudsman directed the bank to honour the guarantee and compensate the complainant for the loss of interest.

(Source: Annual report of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme.)

comment COMMENT NOW