Sandhya Sathyanadhan vs The Appellate Authority/Deputy ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1185 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
        FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 8TH MAGHA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO. 2260 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

           SANDHYA SATHYANADHAN
           AGED 45 YEARS
           W/O. SATHYANADHAN, PROPRIETOR,
           M/S ARJUNA PRINT AND PACK, SNDP BUILDING, 1/57-1,
           SEMINARIPADY, U.C.COLLEGE P. O.,
           ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683102,
           RESIDING AT THOTTILPARAMBIL HOUSE, THOTTAKATTUKARA,
           ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 108.

           BY ADVS.
           DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
           SRI.N.R.SANGEETHARAJ
           SRI.VINOD S. PILLAI
           SMT.SREELAKSHMI R.
           SHRI.MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.



RESPONDENT/S:

    1      THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY/DEPUTY GOVERNOR OF RESERVE BANK OF
           INDIA
           CONSUMER EDUCATION AND PROTECTION DEPARTMENT,
           CENTRAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, AMAR BUILDING,
           SIR P. M. ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI - 400 001.

    2      THE BANKING IMBUDSMAN
           OFFICE OF THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN,
           RESERVE BANK OF INDIA BUILDING (I FLOOR),
           BAKERY JUCTION,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 003.

    3      FEDERAL BANK LTD.
           THOTTAKATTUKARA BRANCH, GROUND FLOOR,
           PARACKAL TOWERS, U. C. COLLEGE P. O.,
           ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683102,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
 WP(C) NO. 2260 OF 2021
                                   2



    4          THE ASSISTANT MANAGER
               CONSUMER EDUCATION AND PROTECTION DEPARTMENT,
               RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE,
               1ST FLOOR, AMAR BUILDING,
               SIR P. M. ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI - 400 001.

            BY ADVS.
            SMT.P.V.PARVATHY (P-41)
            SMT.REENA THOMAS
            SMT.NIGI GEORGE
            SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SC




        THIS     WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION       ON   28.01.2022,   THE   COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 2260 OF 2021
                                  3



             P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
          ===================
             WP(C) No. 2260 OF 2021
          ===================
     Dated this the 28th day of January 2022


                        JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following

prayers;

" i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, or direction to call for records leading to Ext.P4 and to quash the same.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction to the 1 st respondent to give the copy of the appeal filed by the 3 rd respondent against Ext.P3 order and thereafter hear the petitioner before passing the order passed in appeal filed by the 3 rd respondent against Ext.P3 order.

iii) Grant such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. The petitioner is the proprietrix of the firm M/s

Arjuna Print & Pack. It is the case of the petitioner that an

overdraft facility was sanctioned in favour of the firm by

the 4th respondent bank and all transactions of the firm WP(C) NO. 2260 OF 2021

including insurance payment was routed through the

account. It is further stated that in the flood of August

2018, the machinery worth Rs. 35 lakhs and the Rs. 20

lakhs worth of stock in the firm was destroyed. According

to the petitioner, when the petitioner raised the insurance

claim for the stock and machinery, the same was rejected

on the ground that the insurance policy was not renewed

by the bank. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed a

complaint before the 2nd respondent-Ombudsman seeking

intervention for getting compensation from the 3 rd

respondent for the loss caused to her due to the non

renewal of the insurance policy. Ext.P3 award was passed

by the 2nd respondent making the 3rd respondent liable to

pay the petitioner the amount she would have been

entitled to receive from the insurance company. It is the

further case of the petitioner that on 23.03.2020, Ext.P4

email was forwarded by the 3rd respondent to the WP(C) NO. 2260 OF 2021

petitioner intimating that an appeal has been filed against

the Ext.P3 award. It is also the case of the petitioner that

the copy of the appeal was not served to the petitioner

and the petitioner received no further intimation as to the

proceedings in the appeal. Subsequently, it is submitted

by the petitioner that the 1st respondent without hearing

the petitioner passed an order dated 12.01.2021 whereby

the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent was allowed and

Ext.P3 award of the 2nd respondent was set aside. It is the

specific case of the petitioner that Ext.P5 order was

passed by the appellate authority without giving an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.

4. The short points raised by the learned counsel

for the petitioner is that Ext.P5 order is passed by the 1 st

respondent without giving an opportunity of hearing to the WP(C) NO. 2260 OF 2021

petitioner. I perused Ext.P5 order. From Ext.P5, it is clear

that it is an order passed without giving an opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner. Moreover, there is no dispute on

that aspect. Actually Ext.P5 is an order passed by the

appellate authority setting aside Ext.P3 award. Such an

order is passed even without giving an opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner and hence it is unsustainable.

Therefore, according to me, without expressing any

opinion on merit, Ext.P5 can be set aside and the matter

can be remanded to the appellate authority for fresh

consideration in accordance to law, after giving an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and 3 rd

respondent. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the

following manner;

1) Ext.P5 order is set as side.

2) The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the

appeal after giving an opportunity of hearing to the WP(C) NO. 2260 OF 2021

petitioner and 3rd respondent, as expeditiously as possible,

at any rate within a period of two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of the judgment.

3) Hearing of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent

can be either physically or virtually.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

JUDGE LU WP(C) NO. 2260 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2260/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.11.2019.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT OMBUDSMAN DATED 07.12.2019.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN COMPLAINT NUMBER CMS 201920015002956/2019-20 DATED 24.01.2020.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRONIC MESSAGE FORWARDED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 23.03.2020.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 12.01.2021.

// True Copy // PA To Judge