Clause 8 & 9(3) of bo rules 2006
Guest
(Querist) 24 April 2014
This query is : Resolved
My complaint online to Banking Ombudsman was admitted as a maintainable complaint by the office of the BO Hyd. After two months it disposed of under Clause 8 & 9(3) of the BO Rules 2006 without citing any specific sub rule/clause.And it was communicated only to the accused bank with no intimation to the complainant. The bank has informed me with an extract but without a copy of the order of BO. I read the clause and the subclauses on my own. After exhausting all my avenues for redressal of grievances submitted another complaint with all the relevant documents to BO Hyd by regd post on 14 Mar 2014. After two weeks i have recd a mail online from the personal assistant of BO Hyd informing me that my complaint ( the previous one which was admitted and then disposed off under clause 8 &9(3) of BO Rules 2006 has now been disposed under clause 11. No specific subclause or explanation given except debarring me from making an appeal to Dy Gov under clause 14. Your expert advice please.
R.V.RAO
(Expert) 25 April 2014
in Hyderabad RBI, IF YOU Have already met the pro and if they were of no use,then,
you can ask/ mail to rbi explaining your problem , to chief manager,dept. of banking affairs,rbi, mumbai and mark a copy to the dept. of banking affairs, ministry of finance, north block,new delhi.
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 25 April 2014
What exactly your problem with the Bank, what is the decision of BO?
Guest
(Querist) 27 April 2014
I am a defence pensioner since feb 2009 having my joint pension acct with BOI. In aug 2013 the bank informed me that an amount of Rs 15 lacs appx had been twice paid in Mar 2010 , now detected and must be paid back with interest.I had not recd any intimation from Principal Controller of Defence Acct Allahabad which issues pension pay orders.I asked bank to approach PCDA which is the competent auth to resolve in such dispute. Instead the bank marked all my FDRs valued at Rs 19 Lakhs as Lien and then force closed them. I had lodged a complaint with BO Hyd to advice the erring bank to unblock my FDRs and raise the issue with PCDA. The BO earlier disposed off my complaint under Clause 8 & 9 of BO Rules 2006 which I came to know from the bank only. I insisted on a copy of the order by the BO. Instead the BO has disposed off the complaint again under clause 11 of the BO Rules and also debarred me from making any appeal to Dy Gov RBI invoking clause 14.
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 28 April 2014
You have not revealed whether it is a fact that Rs.15 lacs appx.had been twice credited to your account or not. If the bank erroneously credited twice where is the question of directing them to PCDA to settle the matter? You have utilized the money for which you are not the true owner and wishes to prolong the issue. That is the reason why Banking Ombudsman has given a direction to the Bank and closed the Bank. If you are smart, the Bank is smarter than you, by foreclosing your deposits and appropriating the amount of double credit. You have no case as you deliberately not refunded the money twice credited.
Guest
(Querist) 28 April 2014
Hoew do I reveal? It is the bank to confirm receipt of all the PPOs issued by the PCDA as most of the times Pensioner's copy of the PPO is not recd by the Pensioner. Secondly it the bank which is to intimate PCDA of any such excess payment or else the bank has is left with no option but to recover a maximum of 1/3 of the monthly pension without the consent of the pensioner as well as the PCDA even if they have made some mistakes. Marking Lien, force closure of my FDRs and then appropriating the amount was not permitted . Pl refer to Para 3 of Circular No 141 issued by PCDA AT/Tech/256-IV dated 07.12/2009 read with Reserve Bank of India letter No DGBA.GAD .No.H .10450/45.03.001 /2008-09 dated 01 Jun 2009. It will certainly expand your horizon even if you are a standing counsell for any private or PSU bank.
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 30 April 2014
Banks are arbitrary in recovering the excess/wrong payments made to the customers. My reply is based on one thing - that you have received the money - you should have returned it. If you feel that bank is wrong in recovering the amount, you wage a legal battle which will take its own time. Ombudsman's decision is also based on my thinking.
Guest
(Querist) 30 April 2014
As soon we sworn in as one of the men in uniform our liberty get restricted under Army Rule 19 where as civilians enjoy all the liberty. We are to be treated differently. I wish you pl take note of the orders of PCDA,(Pensions) Allahabad, Min of Def GOI in 2009 to all the CMD of the Private as well as PSU PDA/Bank ( Pensions disbursing Banks).The had no option but to debit a max of one third of the monthly pensions even if that alleged payment was made due to their negligence or to park black money. 2 lakhs plus strong lawyers in this site must comment on the banker's auth on general Lien vis-a-vis order of the PCDA (GOI) in its circular No 141.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 30 April 2014
I prefer not to "Time Pass" on repeated Q.
Guest
(Querist) 30 April 2014
That makes 271,373-1 members still to cooment on this very very important issue Banker's Gen Lien vs Circular No 141 issued by PCDA Allahabad to all CMD of all PSU/PRIVATE PDA Banks in respect to recovery of excess amount for Defence Pensioners.
In the instant case the PDA bank paid the alleged sum of Rs 15 Lacs in 2010 and detect it in Aug 2013. They did not inform PCDA who is the PPO issuing auth and the arbitrator but instead mark all my FDRs valued then at 19 Lacs and appropriated the whole amount. They as stated by them have transferred a sum equivalent to the excess amount paid to their CPPC Nagpur and retained the 3.84 Lacs of Rs the interest component into their TEA PARTY OFFICE acct.
Whereas circular 141 was the only option left to them to recover even if there was any excess payment.
Guest
(Querist) 04 May 2014
@VR Shroff..Time pass..follow the link ..attachment posted in the forum under Gen Lien vs govt order:--
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Banker-s-gen-lien-amp-pcda-circular-no-141-of-2009-101742.asp#.U14yaoGSynA
