No hearing in 2cr plaint, HC frowns at RBI ombudsman | Mumbai News

Mumbai: Bombay high court recently frowned at the RBI ombudsman for summarily dismissing a “serious” complaint of Rs 2 crore being siphoned off from an account with a private bank in Khar West without a hearing.“This complaint could not have been disposed of in a summary manner without even minimum compliance with the principle of natural justice or fair play,” said a bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Advait Sethna on Oct 17. They set aside the Jan 2021 order and restored the complaint. It said the banking ombudsman must hear petitioner Kamal Makhija and respondent IndusInd Bank and “dispose of the complaint in accordance with law”. Makhija’s petition said he is a partner in a firm that has had a cash credit account with IndusInd Bank for over 20 years. On Oct 3, 2020, the mobile number registered with the branch was disconnected. There was no service or response from MTNL over the weekend. On Oct 5, it was noticed there were unauthorised debit transactions of Rs 2 crore on the intervening night of Oct 4-5. Cyber police’s probe revealed that a new SIM card was issued by MTNL to an unknown person and the money was transferred to other bank accounts. IndusInd Bank denied any role in the fraudulent transactions. Makhija filed a complaint with the banking ombudsman on Nov 6, 2020. The complaint was dismissed on Jan 15, 2021. Makhija’s advocates Harish Pandya and Pankaj Bafna said even the order was not communicated and only through RTI Act could he obtain a copy of the order. RBI’s advocate said it was not able to vouch for any hearing given by the ombudsman. The judges directed the state to file before the ombudsman a copy of the chargesheet/cyber report within four weeks. They requested the ombudsman to consider RBI’s July 2017 circular limiting the liability of customers who report cyberfraud within three days. HC said the bank must adopt a “sensitive approach” towards such matters and see whether any further measure needs to be taken to prevent such incidents. “[It] must also cooperate with the ombudsman because ultimately, such incidents tend to shake the faith of common persons in our banking institutions. Even the ombudsman should approach this matter from this perspective, instead of a simple dispute between two parties.” It requested the ombudsman “to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and in any event in four months”.