Banking Ombudsman Continues To Resolve Majority Complaints by Mutual Settlement; Award Given in Only 0.04% Cases
The office of the Banking Ombudsman (BO) has disposed almost 72.34% of the complaints through mutual settlement or agreement and issued awards in only 68 cases, that is 0.04% of the total 173,958 maintainable cases during 2019-20, reveals a report from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The annual report is for 12 months till 30 June 2020.
 
Maintainable complaints are those that are made to the BO, relating to the grounds of a complaint specified in Clause 8 of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme (BOS) 2006 and are in line with the requirements laid down in the Scheme. BOS envisages settlement of complaints by agreement through conciliation or mediation. If the parties fail to arrive at an acceptable agreement, the BO gives a decision, which includes passing an award against the bank. There has been a marked increase in the number of complaints resolved by agreement in the past two years, the report shows.
 
The share of maintainable complaints disposed by way of mutual settlement and agreement has gone up to 72.34% during 2019-20 compared with 69.88% during 2018-19 and 65.83% during 2017-18, indicating the increasing share of complaints being resolved through mediation.
 
 
 
The number of complaints received by the 22 offices of Banking Ombudsman (OBOs) during 2019-20 rose by 57.54%, and the OBOs handled 58.69% more complaints compared to the previous year. Complaints relating to digital modes of transactions were the highest, constituting 44.66% of the total complaints received, surpassing violation of non-observance of fair practice code (FPC) as the top category of complaints received at OBOs. 
 
The majority (72.35%) of the maintainable complaints were resolved through mediation. During the year, 68 awards were issued by BOs. Sixty-three appeals were received against the decisions of the BOs. Of these, 29 appeals were against awards passed by the BOs and 34 were appeals made by customers against the rejection of their complaints, the report shows.
BOS promotes settlement of complaints by agreement through conciliation and/or mediation by BOs. If the parties fail to arrive at an acceptable agreement, the BO gives a decision or passes an award.
 
The number of maintainable complaints rejected has increased in absolute number to 47,873 in 2019-20 from 26,905 in 2018-19. The maximum number of rejections were on the ground that the complaint was ‘not on the grounds of complaint (Clause 8)’ or ‘not filed in accordance with required provisions of Clause 9 (3)’, accounting for 98.30% of the rejected maintainable complaints in 2018-19 and 98.64% in 2019-20.
 
According to the report, though the rejection rate related to recovery agents was the highest at 60.60%, the number of complaints received against the said category was nominal at 703 maintainable complaints during the year, of which 426 were rejected. High rejection rates were observed in complaints related to loans and advances (40.01%), fair practices code (36.6%) and mobile and electronic banking (36.1%). The lowest rejection rate was observed in complaints related to failure on commitments (11.84%), followed by pension related complaints (16.35%). The rejection rate in credit card related complaints stood at 34.56%.
 
 
On further analysis of the reasons for rejection of maintainable complaints category-wise, it is observed that around 96% of the total maintainable complaints rejected under each category were rejected under Clause 13(a) of the scheme, i.e., ‘not on the grounds of complaints referred to in Clause 8 of the Scheme’. 
 
Maintainable complaints rejected under Clause 13(b) of the scheme, i.e., ‘otherwise not in accordance with Sub Clause (3) of clause 9’ out of total maintainable complaints rejected was slightly higher for complaints related to notes and coins (4.4%), ATM and debit cards (3.74%) and remittance (3.4%). 
 
"It is likely that complainants approach the BO platform on grounds that are not covered under the scheme. To address the concern of possible ambiguity for complainants on which are grounds covered or not covered under BOS, the expansion of grounds of complaints is under consideration," RBI says in the report.
 
 
Often, bank customers directly approach the Banking Ombudsman instead of raising their grievance with the bank manager, then escalating to the nodal officer level and finally going to BO. When such first resort complaints or FRCs are filed directly with the ombudsman, the complainants are advised to follow the laid down procedure with a copy to the concerned bank for suitable redressal.
 
During the year, 68 awards were issued by BOs of which 38 were implemented. Highest number of awards issued (24) and implemented (16) are from the BO in New Delhi I. This is followed by Thiruvananthapuram, where 10 awards were issued, of which six were implemented. Surprisingly, there are eight BO offices, where not a single award was issued. This includes two BO offices in Mumbai, and one each from Patna, New Delhi III, Jammu, Jaipur, Hyderabad, and Ahmedabad.  
 
 
 
While the BO allows mutual settlements, in case of an award issued, both the parties have been given a right to appeal. Under BOS, the deputy governor in charge of consumer education and protection department (CEPD) of the RBI, is the appellate authority (AA). 
 
During the year, 63 appeals were received at the AA level compared with 78 appeals during the previous year. Of these, 34 appeals were received from complainants, who were aggrieved by the decision of the respective BOs while 29 were filed by the banks against the awards. With 72 appeals pending from the previous year, the AA handled 135 appeals and disposed 88 appeals during the year. 
 
Out of the 88 appeals disposed by the AA, maximum 38 were remanded back to the BO. As many as 29 appeals were disposed in favour of the complainant, while 21 were ruled in favour of the banks, the report shows.
 
 
In February 2018, RBI introduced BOS for non-banking financial companies (NBFC-O Scheme). The Scheme is applicable to NBFCs which are authorised to accept deposits; or have customer interface, with asset size of Rs100 crore or above (effective from 26 April 2019), as on the date of the audited balance sheet of the previous financial year, or with any such asset size prescribed by the central bank.
 
During 2019-20, the four offices of NBFC-O received 19,432 complaints, almost five times compared with 3,991 complaints from the previous year. The NBFC ombudsman office at Mumbai accounted for the maximum (41.28%) number of complaints received, followed by New Delhi (35.43%), Chennai (16.98%) and Kolkata (6.31%). Mumbai also witnessed the highest increase in the inflow of complaints (706.13%) as compared to the previous year.
 
Complaints relating to non-adherence of FPC were the highest and constituted 36.29% of the total complaints received. The majority (71.12%) of maintainable complaints were resolved through mediation. No award was passed by the NBFCOs. During the year, one appeal was received against the decision of the NBFCO, the report shows.
 
Most of the complaints handled during the year were disposed under Clause 11(4)(a) of the OSNBFC, which states that the grievances raised by the complainant have been resolved by the NBFC with the intervention of the ombudsman. Further, 28.85% of the complaints were rejected; and no awards were issued during the year.
 
The non-maintainable complaints formed a sizeable portion of the complaints received during 2019-20. The grounds under which the complaints were disposed as non-maintainable are given in the chart below. It may be observed that complaints were disposed of as non-maintainable largely due to being outside the territorial jurisdiction, being FRCs, or not being represented properly.
 
 
The number of complaints received by the 22 Ombudsman Scheme for Digital Transactions (OSDTs) during 2019-20 rose by 119.95% (annualised) compared with the previous year. Most of the complaints (2,239 – 99.4%) were lodged through the electronic mode. 
 
Fund transfers or unified payments interface (UPI), Bharat bill payment system (BBPS) and Bharat quick response (QR) code constituted the main areas of complaint at 43.89%. The majority (56.12%) of maintainable complaints were resolved through mediation. No award was passed by Ombudsmen for Digital Transactions (ODTs). 
 
 
Individual customers constituted the largest segment (77.23%) of complainants during the year 2019-20. Senior citizens accounted for 1.01% of the total complaints. 
The report observes that complaints were considered non-maintainable by the ombudsman for digital transaction largely due to not being represented properly, FRCs and complaints outside the territorial jurisdiction of the ombudsman.
 
FRCs are those complaints which were entered in the CMS portal without the complainant approaching the concerned entity first. Such FRC complaints were forwarded to the respective system participant for disposal at their end. Complainants are, however, advised through closure letters that they may approach the ODT again in case they are not satisfied with the decision of the concerned entity, the report says. 
 
 
During 2019-20 under the Reserve Bank’s medium-term strategy called ‘Utkarsh 2022’ was to ‘formulate policy to strengthen the system based on the root cause analysis (RCA) of major areas of complaints’, and thereby strengthen the consumer protection framework. 
 
The objective of RCA is to identify persisting issues at the systemic level, their causes, and the remedial measures required to address them. Actions based on the issues identified shall be initiated to address the root cause of the concerns and thereby reduce the grievances of customers. Further, efforts are also being invigorated to strengthen the redressal machinery for consumers of REs in case of grievances.
 
The RCA for 2020 (RCA-2020) on the complaints received at RBI was conducted by the offices of the ombudsmen and the Consumer Education and Protection Cell (CEPCs). RCA-2020 delved into 15 main issues, main concerns, their root causes and recommendations for remedial measures.
 
Many consumers have raised issues related with ATM or debit card related transactions such as non-dispensation or short dispensation of cash and fraudulent ATM transactions due to surface skimming by fraudsters. The root cause noted was lack of awareness amongst consumers regarding safe ATM banking, delay in auto-reversal of funds and non-availability of CCTV footages. As remedial measures, the RCA-2020 advised the banks and the RBI to increase efforts for creating awareness on safe banking, reiterate adherence to extant regulations on auto reversal and ATM transactions and considering better coordination between banks and the National Payment Corp of India (NPCI).
 
 
  • Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

    User 

    COMMENTS

    ssk.pab

    2 weeks ago

    Maintainable complaint-that is the catch word of RBI report.
    Please tell me who should decide as to what is maintainable?
    At this stage I would also like to enlighten you that once it is decided that the complaint is non maintainable, you can not go into appeal to Dy governor of RBI-you are left to the mercy of Civil Courts only.
    So, now, with the above information, please tell me who should decide what is maintainable?
    For your information it is BO who takes the call about the maintainability of the complaint.
    So I have a very simple question-if you are the judge and you have to decide on the maintainability of a case, without the fear of any harm to you whatsoever, would the temptation of calling any case non-maintainable arise, for whatsoever reasons or not?
    Under this clause, BO can and does throw out the strongest possible cases you can imagine without any fear of being questioned and he/she does exactly that. The BO does not even bother to specify why it is non maintainable under any of the REASONS specified in RBI Report as reproduced by you.
    RBI system of complaint redressal is so shabby that even in house mechanism (in the form of CEPD headed by no less than a Chef General Manager reporting directly to an Executive Director of RBI) of attending to any complaint against any department, including the BO, does not get resolved for years together.
    Not that RBI is lacking in its intention to help you, but it is sorely lacking in self-assessment by way of very strong AUDIT OF ITS COMPLAINT REDRESSAL SYSTEMS – both in house and the BO.
    I suggest as a follow up to your article, Invite details of non maintainable cases – as experienced by the public - and you will know how many genuine complaints lick the dust for the reasons known only to the BO and the corresponding defaulting Banks. Forward these details to the Governor RBI – let him know what is happening right under his nose.

    REPLY

    neelimanair2012

    In Reply to ssk.pab 2 weeks ago

    They reject stating non maintainable and the same case get complex multi fold .This is happening so many years and the govt.machinery Is amite spectator to this

    ampresand

    In Reply to ssk.pab 2 weeks ago

    You have rightly elaborated on the ramshackle and eyewash that the statistical claims are....far removed from reality and untruthful in toto. Such an institution which is farcical is better closed down so that the disservice will be put to and end and also valuable tax or other public money spent to maintain it could be deployed elsewhere for a good cause

    MDT

    In Reply to ssk.pab 2 weeks ago

    Thanks for your comments. Request you to read this article to know how BO works and what are the rules for its maintainable complaints. https://www.moneylife.in/article/how-to-register-a-complaint-against-your-bank-with-the-banking-ombudsman/62102.html

    ssk.pab

    In Reply to MDT 2 weeks ago

    Hi MDT,
    If you thought I was not aware of BOS 2006 Rules and Regulations, let me assure you nobody would know it better than me! BO simply did not take any note of the facts presented by me-all true events based on my experience and no response from the Bank on my formal complaint!!
    I have quoted in details the same rules and regulations while lodging my complaint with CEPD and yet, in its wisdom this entity does not take cognizance of my complaint against BO and sitting tight on my complaint for more than a year!!!
    SO MUCH FOR RBI complaint resolution mechanism.
    That is why I suggested let Money life take organised initiative and send a wake up call to the Governor RBI.

    mohansiroya

    In Reply to ssk.pab 2 weeks ago

    Thanks Mr.SSK for elaborating concerns and goings on at Ombudsman or RBI level Since Ombudsman is not answerable to anyone and the Appallate Authority,Deputy Governor too is in connivance , dipositors having grievances are doomed. Sorry to say that a savvy and Consumer friendly mag Moneylife just belived in what the RBI report states. I challange, let there be an Audit of all data By CAG whether they are genuine or cooked up. Assuming positive figures are correct, what about the negative figures and the reason for Non-maintanable or summary disposals without hearing the complainant ?

    MDT

    In Reply to mohansiroya 2 weeks ago

    Thanks for your comment, Sir. Moneylife is for always there for the savers and consumers. This article is based on the Report from RBI and we have written what is mentioned in that report. Hope you understand.

    ssk.pab

    In Reply to MDT 2 weeks ago

    Hi MDT,
    There is no question of finding fault with you. You did well to compile this article and at least now we do know for sure that RBI is living in the dream world of its own totally unconcerned or / and unaware of the facts - a very bad sign for the common depositors!s.

    neelimanair2012

    2 weeks ago

    This banking ombudsman makes a statement that it is disposed under section 13(a) and further no action.They refuse to elaborate.Even they refuse to specify the reason for disposal.This supporting act for the bank helps them to develop into a big scam in the later on stages.GOVT IS MAKING BANKING OMBUDSMAN INEFFECTIVE for the bank to carry on their act of corruption without much control by the banking ombudsman.Genuine cases are disposed helping bank and effecting msme.

    REPLY

    mohansiroya

    In Reply to neelimanair2012 2 weeks ago

    This is the scourge and most denigratin TANASHAI of the Ombudsman as per the powers given under the Ombudsman Scheme.

    mohansiroya

    2 weeks ago

    This elaborate statistical report gives readers a rosy picture about the working of the banking Ombudsman. As far as my experience is concerned, it is dismal so far as Banking Ombudsman Mumbai is concered. I give below my following observations

    i) In oldeen days it used to allot an unique complaint no to each complaint received by it based on which it was easy to follow up with the Ombudsman office. Presently such system does not exist resulting in enormous delays .Just to know the status, one has to approach to CPEC or other RBI authorities but in vain. In frustration often complaints are lodged with DRPG.
    ii) My own experience says that in about 11 complaints, three were settled mutually with RBI intervention, one was closed in nuetrality ,in one an award was passed ,other 5 complaints were just summarily disposed of without calling the complainant and taking away the right of appeal too. One is pending since last about 6 months.It can not be followed for lack of complaint number or STATUS response is not forthcoming in spite of several reminders.

    REPLY

    MDT

    In Reply to mohansiroya 2 weeks ago

    Dear sir,
    If you have filed online complaint at https://cms.rbi.org.in/, you would receive complaint number automatically. You may also want to check this page https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/FAQView.aspx?Id=24
    Thanks.

    neelimanair2012

    In Reply to mohansiroya 2 weeks ago

    Many other areas af manipulation are to be diagnosed

    sureshtb4246

    2 weeks ago

    In my Case, there was no mutual agreement and Conciliation before the Bangalore banking ombudsman failed. The BO did not give an Award. Appeal to the Appellate authority, deputy Governor, RBI, MUMBAI, RECEIVED REPLY AFTER 200 DAYS. - "NON APPEALABLE" I can provide FULL DETAILS if you take up this Case thanks and regards

    REPLY

    sucheta

    In Reply to sureshtb4246 2 weeks ago

    Please do send details to [email protected] but after exploring the work we do and becoming a member - it is FREE and requires minimal information

    mohansiroya

    In Reply to sureshtb4246 2 weeks ago

    I am in agreement with the plight Mr. Suresh

    We are listening!

    Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
      Loading...
    Close

    To continue


    Please
    Sign Up or Sign In
    with

    Email
    Close

    To continue


    Please
    Sign Up or Sign In
    with

    Email

    BUY NOW

    online financial advisory
    Pathbreakers
    Pathbreakers 1 & Pathbreakers 2 contain deep insights, unknown facts and captivating events in the life of 51 top achievers, in their own words.
    online financia advisory
    The Scam
    28 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
    Moneylife Online Magazine
    Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
    financial magazines online
    Stockletters in 4 Flavours
    Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
    financial magazines in india
    MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
    (Includes Moneylife Online Magazine)