A case of too many laws and too little justice, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


When personnel from the Rajasthan Police knocked on his door early morning on November 1, former State Bank of India chairman Pratip Chaudhuri didn’t even know about the case the uniformed enforcers of the law were talking about.

The former top banker at India’s biggest mass lender was not aware of any case against him anywhere in India. And he most certainly did not recall any ‘Garh Rajwada’ Hotel project in Rajasthan financed by the bank.

“They had a warrant and told me I had to come with them and I will know about the case only after I am produced in court. I said I was not a fugitive and went along with them and was produced in court,” Chaudhuri told ET over the phone.

Chaudhuri did not expect to spend the next eight days – through the Diwali week – in judicial custody. But that is exactly what happened, his arrest overshadowing the celebrations and grabbing prime column inches nationally.

“I knew the case against me was frivolous and will not stand in the court of law. But the worrying part was this was the holiday week and the courts were on holiday and judges were on leave. On the third day, I took the advice to take medical facilities due to my blood pressure and hypertension issues,” Chaudhuri said.

The Case in Question
Chaudhuri was arrested from his Delhi residence by the Rajasthan Police and taken to Jaisalmer on November 1. His subsequent bail application was rejected by the magistrate officer. The case refers to the ‘Garh Rajwada’ hotel project in Jaisalmer, financed through a ₹25-crore loan by State Bank of India (SBI) in 2007. Since the project was not completed for three years and a key promoter passed away in April 2010, the account slipped into an NPA in June 2010.

The bank’s recovery or revival efforts failed to succeed. So, SBI sold the loans to Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Co (ARC) in March 2014. Pratip Chaudhuri, and the co-accused from the ARC, faced charges of cheating (Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code), criminal breach of trust by a public servant (Section 409), and punishment for criminal conspiracy (Section 120 B) at the local court in Rajasthan. The erstwhile promoters, Harender Singh Rathore and Lokendra Singh Rathore, had alleged that the hotel property worth ₹200 crore was sold for just ₹25 crore due to a nexus between SBI and Alchemist ARC.

Lokendra Singh Rathore, the co-promoter in the firm alleged a connivance between Alchemist officials and SBI officials and said that he will continue to fight the case in court.

“Out of the ₹23 crore disbursed by SBI we had paid back more than ₹5 crore in six equal EMIs. We had requested another ₹6 crore from the bank which it delayed between 2008 and 2010. In 2010, after the death of my father the account downgraded into a NPA even as we were still waiting for fresh funds from the bank. This whole property has been taken by Alchemist ARC at ₹25 crore in 2013 and further sold to an NBFC called GFC for ₹40 crore in 2017. Today, its value is ₹200 crore. We have full faith in the judiciary will will continue to fight in court,” Rathore said.

To be sure, Chaudhuri had retired from the bank six months before the sale of the loan account to the ARC – in September 2013.

The police action appears to have run counter to a Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) circular published about a couple of months ago laying down standard operating procedures (SOP) for action against government officials. It specified that police officers have to seek prior approval under the newly inserted Section 17A in the Prevention of Corruption Act (2018). The amendment also details stage-wise processing of information by the police officer concerned and also a checklist that must accompany an application under Section 17 A.

Chaudhuri said as his case showed, such rules exist only on paper and there is no judicial recourse once push comes to shove.

“Like eminent jurist Palkhivala has said, ‘there are too many laws and too little justice.’ Forget DoPT, even the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) rules also say that independent directors cannot be accountable for decisions taken by the companies they are in, but nobody follows these rules,” Chaudhuri said. “Some chief judicial magistrate in small-town in India can just issue a non-bailable arrest warrant disregarding a Supreme Court order and there is no accountability for that.”

Systemic Challenges
Chaudhuri’s arrest is the latest in a list of such actions by police personnel against bankers.

More than three years ago, Bank of Maharashtra CEO Ravindra Prabhakar Marathe was dramatically arrested while on his morning walk. Also arrested were executive directors Rajendra Kumar Gupta, former managing director Sushil Muhnot and zonal manager Nityanand Deshpande in connection with a case registered in October 2017 against developer Deepak Kulkarni, his wife Hemanti Kulkarni, son Shirish and others in a ₹2,043.18-crore fraud where it was alleged that they extended fraudulent loans to Pune’s DSK Group.

However, the Pune police filed a closure report within four months citing lack of evidence and the officials concerned were reinstated.

Summons by the police are not just to public sector bankers. On Thursday, the EOW of the Mumbai police began a probe into charges of wrongdoing by former ICICI Bank officials in a case where hotelier Vishal Sharma has alleged he was duped of ₹120 crore by the officials and an ARC. The loan itself dates back to 2011. Bankers say limited understanding of the bad loan business is itself a challenge.

“A loan gone bad and sold for half the price does not mean that the bank has sold it for a song. It means that at that point in time, recovery from that asset is limited. It is always likely that an ARC which buys it finds a better price. It does not mean that the sale should not have happened in the first place,” said a senior banker.

SBI has said that all due processes were followed by the bank after a key promoter of the hotel project passed away in April 2010 and the account slipped into an NPA in June 2010. In a statement, SBI said the sale to Alchemist ARC was done through a laid down process. Further, the account was taken to the bankruptcy court and was acquired by an NBFC in December 2017.

“In all these kinds of cases, promoters allege different things at different times to prevent the asset from being sold. Nobody will ask what shape the hotel was in when it was auctioned. The promoters did their best to halt proceedings even going up to the SC which had dismissed their petition. This arrest on the orders of a chief judicial magistrate after the highest court has okayed the transaction is a complete eyewash,” said a person closely involved in the case.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

UBS picks ex-Morgan Stanley chief as next chairman, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Geneva, Nov 20, 2021 -Swiss banking giant UBS on Saturday said its board had nominated former Morgan Stanley president Colm Kelleher as its next chairman, replacing Axel Weber after a decade in the role.

“The board of directors of UBS Group AG will nominate Colm Kelleher as new chairman … for election to the board at the annual general meeting on 6 April 2022,” the bank said in a statement.

If elected, Kelleher, a 64-year-old Irishman, will succeed Axel Weber, a former Bundesbank chief who took over the chairmanship at Switzerland’s largest bank in 2012.

Weber “will have reached the maximum term limit after 10 yeas in office and will thus not stand for re-election,” UBS said.

Weber said Kelleher, who retired from his post as Morgan Stanley president in June 2019 after three decades at the US investment bank, was the right man for the job.

“With Colm Kelleher’s nomination, UBS is pleased to propose a board member and future chairman who has a deep understanding of the global banking landscape,” Weber said in the statement.

“His more than 30 years of leadership experience in banking and excellent relationships around the world make Colm an ideal fit for UBS.”

Ralph Hamers, who took over as UBS chief executive a year ago, also said Kelleher would bring “valuable expertise in banking to the board, and I’m looking forward to working with him to further shaping the future of UBS.”

Kelleher himself said he was looking forward to working with the UBS team, and that “being able to help shape the bank’s future is a great privilege.”

Also on Saturday, the UBS board nominated Lukas Gahwiler, chairman for its Switzerland division, to the position of global vice chairman.

nl/pbr

UBS GROUP AG

MORGAN STANLEY



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

5 Best Performing Technology (IT) Sector Funds To Consider for Long Term 2021

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


ICICI Prudential Technology Direct Plan

ICICI Prudential Technology Direct Plan-Growth is a medium-sized fund in its category, with assets under management (AUM) of 6,887 crores. The fund’s expense ratio is 0.79 percent, which is lower than the expense ratios charged by most other Sectoral-Technology funds.

The last one-year returns on ICICI Prudential Technology Direct Plan-Growth are 95.03 percent. It has returned an average of 28.25 percent per year since its inception.

Infosys Ltd., Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., HCL Technologies Ltd., Tech Mahindra Ltd., and Persistent Systems Ltd. are the fund’s top five holdings.

Tata Digital India Fund

Tata Digital India Fund

Tata Digital India Fund Direct-Growth had Rs 3,842 crores in assets under management (AUM), making it a medium-sized fund in its category.

The fund’s expense ratio is 0.43 percent, which is lower than the expense ratios charged by most other Sectoral-Technology funds.

The 1-year returns for the Tata Digital India Fund Direct-Growth are 93.80%. It has returned an average of 27.89 percent per year since its inception.

The fund’s top 5 holdings are in Infosys Ltd., Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Tech Mahindra Ltd., HCL Technologies Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd.

The scheme aims to achieve long-term capital appreciation by investing at least 80% of its net assets in stock and equity-related securities of companies in India’s Information Technology sector.

Aditya Birla Digital India Fund

Aditya Birla Digital India Fund

Aditya Birla Sun Life Digital India Fund Direct-Growth has assets under management (AUM) of 2,658 crores, making it a medium-sized fund in its category. The fund’s expense ratio is 1.02 percent, which is comparable to the expense ratios charged by most other Sectoral-Technology funds.

Aditya Birla Sun Life Digital India Fund Direct-Growth gains have been 82.34 percent during the last year. It has returned an average of 26.78 percent per year since its inception. Infosys Ltd., Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Tech Mahindra Ltd., HCL Technologies Ltd., and Bharti Airtel Ltd. are the fund’s top five holdings. The majority of the money in the fund is invested in the Technology, Communication, Services, Consumer Durables, and Engineering industries.

SBI Technology Opportunities Fund

SBI Technology Opportunities Fund

SBI Technology Opportunities Fund-Growth has assets under management (AUM) of 1,891 crores, making it a medium-sized fund in its category. The fund has a 2.27 percent expense ratio, which is higher than most other Sectoral-Technology funds.

SBI Technology Opportunities Fund’s 1-year growth returns are 80.20 percent. It has had an average yearly return of 16.61 percent since its inception. Infosys Ltd., Alphabet Inc Class A, HCL Technologies Ltd., Tech Mahindra Ltd., and Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. are the fund’s top five holdings. By investing in a diversified portfolio of equity and debt securities, the scheme aims to provide the investor with the chance for long-term financial appreciation.

Franklin India Technology Fund

Franklin India Technology Fund

Franklin India Technology Fund Direct-Growth is a medium-sized fund in its category, with assets under management (AUM) of 721 crores. The fund has a 1.47 percent expense ratio, which is higher than most other Sectoral-Technology funds.

Franklin India Technology Fund Direct has a 1-year growth rate of 55.86 percent. It has returned an average of 23.05 percent per year since its inception. Infosys Ltd., TCS Ltd., and HCL Technologies Ltd. are among the fund’s top five positions. The programme aims to achieve above-average capital appreciation by investing in high-quality, fast-growing information technology companies. When it comes to stock pricing, the Fund will take a bottom-up approach.

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

The views and investment tips expressed by authors or employees of Greynium Information Technologies, should not be construed as investment advice to buy or sell stocks, gold, currency, or other commodities. Investors should certainly not take any trading and investment decision based only on information discussed on GoodReturns.in We are not a qualified financial advisor and any information herein is not investment advice. It is informational in nature.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Check 3 Upcoming Corporate Actions Lined Up Next Week

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


1. Tide Water Oil Company (India) Ltd.:

Incorporated in 1928, the company is among the top players in the lubricant industry. Veedol lubricant brand is manufactured and marketed by the company. The company’s range of auto products includes engine oils, gear oils, transmission oils, coolants, and greases for automobiles. The company also offers products for industrial application including industrial oils, greases, and specialty products.

The company has a decent dividend track record and on November 12, 2021 it has announced an interim dividend of Rs. 20 per share (dividend %-1000%) and for the same the stock shall turn ex-dividend on November 22. For the Fy 21, the company declared a dividend of 6000% amounting to Rs. 300 apiece. Considering current market price of Rs. 1669 apiece on the NSE, the dividend yield comes to be 7.19%.

2. Morganite Crucible (India) Ltd.:

2. Morganite Crucible (India) Ltd.:

This is a small cap company from the cement-products and building materials segment. Formerly known by the name Greaves Morganite Crucible Limited, the company is based out of Aurangabad. The company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of crucibles and allied refractory products.

On November 12, the company announced a special dividend of Rs. 42 per share (dividend -840%) for which the ex-date is November 24. Between 2015-2021, the company has announced dividend 7 times.

3. Seacoast Shipping Services:

3. Seacoast Shipping Services:

The company into ground freight and logistics services is again a small cap scrip with the latest m-cap of Rs. 602 crore. The company’s board meeting is scheduled to be held on November 24, 2021. In an exchange filing, the company informed that the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Company is scheduled on 24/11/2021, inter alia, to consider and approve the sub division of face value of equity shares of the company.

Disclaimer:

Disclaimer:

In the story, there are listed the various corporate actions to be carried out by these companies and is not a recommendation to buy into these company stocks. Stock market investment poses financial risk.

GoodReturns.in



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Banks need a tight framework, say experts

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s vision for banks to support start-ups by investing in ideas needs to be backed by a comprehensive framework from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), say banking and finance industry experts.

In the absence of such a framework that would, among other things, cover aspects such as NPA recognition and treatment of start-up failures, public sector banks — which are into mostly asset-based lending — would not venture into supporting start-ups, experts feel.

The framework should be tight and well-thought-out to encompass all aspects of venture funding so as not compromise and expose the bankers if such investee ventures were to fail due to market forces. No banker would want to risk depositors’ money in new start-ups without safeguards. PM Modi had, earlier this week, told bankers to invest in ideas thrown up by the start-ups and support their growth.

Funding start-ups

“Start-up finance is nothing but venture capital finance. Venture capital has never been part of banking. In VC, the person who takes the risk profits if the venture succeeds and suffers losses if it does not. The present regulatory framework does not allow banks the same privilege. They do not profit if the investee venture profits but if it makes losses, the bank loses money. There is a big difference and PSBs definitely are not looking at funding start-ups”, a former chief executive of a PSB told BusinessLine. In PSBs, the monies are that of the depositors and not that of the banker, this expert pointed out.

Venture funding

There has to be a mechanism where the PSBs’ commercial banking activities are ring-fenced from their venture funding efforts, say experts. One way is to encourage banks to float their venture funding entities.

PSBs are presently not allowed to do direct equity investments in start-ups. At the most, they can set up vehicles that will do debt funding. Even here, except for large banks like State Bank of India, there has been very little activity by other PSBs. However, private banks have in the recent years been taking equity exposure in fintechs and other start-ups that they would like to partner with.

“Typically, a venture capital fund spreads its bet among a portfolio of start-ups and if one or two among, say ten, becomes a successful enterprise, it is able to recoup the losses made in other investee companies in the portfolio. That is how the world of venture capital works and it will not be easy for banks to replicate this given their less-than-optimal skillsets in evaluating enterprises even if regulations permit them to take equity bets in start-ups,” said a banking industry observer.

Srinath Sridharan, Corporate Advisor and independent markets commentator, said “This would need the banking sector under RBI’s leadership to come up with requisite framework which encourages entrepreneurship, ideas and reaps benefit for all the stakeholders and also offers solutions to any hesitancy factors”, he said.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Tax Query: Is tax audit needed for claiming loss from F&O trading?

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Please let me know whether tax audit u/s. 44AB read with section 44AD is applicable for A.Y. 2021-22, for claiming loss from futures & options (derivatives) business of ₹1 lakh on turnover of ₹5 lakh and interest income of ₹7 lakh? Also, how to carry forward unabsorbed loss under ‘income from house property (self occupied)’ where interest on home loan exceeds ₹2 lakh as the system ignores excess interest while uploading ITR-3?

Tina B

For the purpose of analysing the applicability of tax audit requirement u/s 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), the turnover is required to be determined. As per the guidance note on tax audit issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountant of India, turnover in case of dealing in futures and options shall include the following:

a) Total of favourable and unfavourable differences

b) Premium received on sale of options

c) In respect of any reverse trades entered, the difference thereon

As per the provisions of Section 44AB every person, carrying on business shall be required to get his accounts audited for such financial year by a Chartered Accountant before the specified date, if total sales, turnover or gross receipts (as applicable), in business exceed ₹1 crore in any previous year. The said limit of ₹1 crore is substituted with ₹10 crore in case the cash receipts do not exceed 5 per cent of the total sale/ turnover/ gross receipts and the cash expenditure does not exceed 5 per cent of the total payments.

As per the provisions of Section 44AD , in the case of an eligible assessee engaged in an eligible business (turnover not exceeding ₹2 crore and not into the business of plying, hiring or leasing goods carriages), a sum equal to 8 per cent (6 per cent in respect of amount received by way of A/c payee cheque/ A/c payee bank draft/ electronic clearing system) or a sum higher than the aforesaid sum shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of such business chargeable to tax under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”.

As per the guidance available on portal of income tax department, a person can declare income at lower rate (i.e. at less than 6 per cent or 8 per cent), however, if he does so and his income exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax, then he is required to maintain the books of account as per the provisions of section 44AA and has to get his accounts audited as per section 44AB. In the instant case, since the income (being loss) from Future & Options is less than 8 per cent / 6 per cent and the total income chargeable to tax is exceeding the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, you would be required to be audited u/s 44AB of the Act .

Carry forward of unabsorbed loss on account of interest on housing loan: As per the provisions of Section 24(b), deduction on account of interest on housing loan in case of a self-occupied property is restricted to ₹2 lakh and hence loss under house property for a self- occupied property cannot exceed ₹2 lakh. Accordingly, any interest paid in excess of ₹2 lakh is neither eligible to be set-off against other heads of income nor allowed to be carried forward for future assessment years. Hence in the instant case, interest paid in excess of ₹2 lakh, shall not be allowed to be carried forward to the future assessment years.

The writer is a practising chartered accountant

Send your queries to taxtalk@thehindu.co.in

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Know about sub limits in health insurance policy

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Covid-19 has made people aware that health emergencies can strike without warning. Further, with sky-rocketing medical costs, having adequate health insurance has become a necessity. Among the various factors that you must pay attention to while choosing health insurance, is sub-limits.

What they are

Sub-limit in health insurance refers to a monetary cap by an insurer on expenses against treatment of diseases/ illness, room rent and post-hospitalization and pre-planned medical procedure related expenditures. This means that the insurance company will only bear expenses up to a predetermined limit. Anything beyond that will have to be borne by the policyholder.

The sub-limit, however, varies across claims. It may be a certain percentage of the sum insured, or up to a certain specific amount. For instance, generally ICU fees and hospital room rent caps are typically 2% and 1%, respectively of the total sum assured. Further, many health insurers allow you to opt out of sub-limits for an additional premium. You can choose between the two options depending on your budget.

Sub limit types

Disease-specific: Most insurers have sub-limits on pre-planned medical treatments, in the form of a defined cost for procedures such as cataract removal, knee ligament reconstruction, kidney stone removal, tonsils, and sinus removal. The list of ailments and the treatment cost cap differs from one insurer to the next. The treatment sub-limit is not related to the sum assured, which means that even if a policyholder has a high amount assured, the sub-limit clause in the policy will prevent him from claiming all of his treatment expenses. For instance, if your policy has a 50% sub-limit clause on a certain medical procedure and your total sum insured is ₹5 lakh, you will be unable to claim more than ₹2.5 lakh for that treatment because of the sub-limit clause.

Room rent: This refers to the maximum rent or room category you are entitled to depending on your health insurance coverage. This is usually 1% of your entire insured. For instance, under a ₹10 lakh policy with a 1% sub-limit on room rent, the insurer will approve a hospital room with a maximum rent of ₹10,000 per day. If the room rent exceeds the set sub-limit, the policyholder will have to bear the rest of the cost.

There will be a cap on associated services such as physician consultation fees, anaesthetists’ charges, diagnostic tests too, because various hospital expenses are tied to the type of room one chooses and as per the sub-limit applicable on room rent.

Post-hospitalisation: In many circumstances, policyholders will be required to stay at home under medical supervision for a certain period after treatment. Many insurers cover post-hospitalisation charges with sub-limits, requiring policyholders to pay a portion of the cost.

When compared to a policy with sub-limits, health insurance policies with no sub-limits will have a higher premium. If you have a sub-limit cover, make sure that your medical expenses do not exceed the threshold level. So, before you buy a new health policy or renew an existing one, be sure to get one that covers you adequately.

The writer is Head- Health Insurance, Policybazaar.com

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

All you wanted to know about survival benefit

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


A call by an insurance agent left Prakash with some unanswered questions related to survival benefit. He posed them to his trusted financial advisor, Sangeetha.

Prakash: An agent called me about a child insurance plan. While pitching the product, he mentioned that survival benefit will be paid as a certain percentage of sum assured. Shouldn’t the survival benefit be larger?

Sangeetha: Survival benefit is similar to maturity benefit. In plans that offer survival benefit, it is a risk-free sum generally paid out as a share of sum assured, at intervals. Typically, 20-30 per cent.

Prakash: Okay. So, survival benefit and maturity benefit are two different things?

Sangeetha: Yes. Some people use the two terms interchangeably, adding to the confusion. Maturity benefit is paid out to the policyholder at the end of the policy term, when the policy matures. In case of survival benefit, the payment happens at the end of the premium payment term. There are many policies where the policy term is 20 years but premium payment is for 15 years. In these cases, the survival benefit may be paid after 15 years in phases, and not after 20 years.

Prakash: Which policies offer survival benefits?

Sangeetha: Savings plans can offer survival benefits, but not all of them do. It depends on the specific plan.

Prakash: Okay. The agent was pitching a money-back policy that pays out survival benefits at regular intervals.

Sangeetha: Money-back is a savings plan. Generally, payouts start after the premium payment term ends, and continue at regular intervals for a specific period.

Prakash: So, can I defer survival benefit?

Sangeetha: Some policies offer that option. In that case, the policyholder can get increased survival benefit i.e. deferred original survival benefit along with interest. If the increased survival benefit is not taken by the policyholder during the currency of the policy, it is paid out later along with maturity benefit.

Prakash: My friend was saying there is one policy that pays 103 per cent of premium as survival benefit. Is this possible?

Sangeetha: I know what you are referring to. But its not 103 per cent of all premiums paid. It is 103 per cent of one annual premium as survival benefit!

Prakash: Smart use of words! Any tax sop on survival benefit received?

Sangeetha: Like maturity benefit, survival benefit is exempt from income tax under Section 10 (10D).

Prakash: Cool. Now that I know how survival benefits work, I will keep an eye out for this feature.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

5 changes in the ombudsman scheme

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The RBI recently launched an integrated ombudsman to strengthen the existing grievance redressal mechanism for consumers of banks, NBFCs and payment system operators. Here are five things that have changed for consumers relating to the ombudsman scheme.

Single-window coverage

Earlier customers had to approach either the Banking Ombudsman, Ombudsman for NBFCs, or the Ombudsman for Digital Transactions, depending upon who they wished to raise complaints against — whether they were grieved by a bank, NBFC or Non-bank System Participants (such as issuers of Pre-Paid Instruments). But now under the integrated ombudsman scheme, the earlier three ombudsman schemes have been unified into one.

Customers can now complain against any covered financial institution on the portal (https://cms.rbi.org.in), or email to (crpc@rbi.org.in) or send physical complaints to Centralised Receipt and Processing Centre of the RBI at Chandigarh, in a prescribed format. Additionally, a contact centre with a toll-free number – 14448 (9:30 am to 5:15 pm) – is also being operationalized in Hindi, English and in eight regional languages to begin with and will be expanded to cover other Indian languages in due course. The contact centre will provide information or clarifications regarding the alternate grievance redress mechanism of RBI and guide customers in filing a complaint.

Besides Non-Scheduled Primary Co-operative Banks with a deposit size of ₹50 crore and above have been added to the ambit of the integrated ombudsman now. The earlier schemes covered only all scheduled commercial banks, regional rural banks and scheduled primary co-operative banks (under the Banking ombudsman Scheme), all deposit taking NBFCs and non-deposit taking NBFCs with an asset size of ₹100 crore and above (under the Ombudsman Scheme for NBFCs) and non-bank system participants regulated by the RBI (under the Ombudsman for Digital Transactions).

Uniform jurisdiction

Hitherto customers were required to file their complaints under the correct scheme and with the correct ombudsman’s office, based on the territorial jurisdiction with reference to the branch of the entity being complained against, failing which the complaint would be rejected. Now apart, from integrating the schemes across regulated entities, the RBI has also done away with the jurisdiction of each ombudsman office.

The receipt of all complaints and initial processing shall be centralized at the office at Chandigarh, to impart efficiency in the process. The integrated ombudsman shall from now on act as a single point of contact for the aggrieved customer, compared to the erstwhile territorial and scheme based jurisdiction which was a usual ground for rejection of claims.

Wider grounds of complaint

Earlier the separate ombudsman schemes specified certain deficiencies in services, on which customers could lodge complaints with the ombudsman. With limited grounds of complaints specified, one could not complain against any grievance not listed under the erstwhile schemes. Now the integrated scheme defines ‘deficiency in service’ as the ground for filing a complaint, with a specified list of exclusions ( such as dispute between regulated entities or one involving an employer- employee relationship, or relating to any service not within the purview of the RBI). Henceforth, complaints would no longer be rejected simply on account of not being covered under the grounds listed in the scheme. Customers can now through the integrated scheme, seek redressal for any deficiency in service, if the same is not resolved to the satisfaction of the customer or not replied to, within a period of 30 days by the regulated entity.

No differential compensation

The erstwhile ombudsman schemes had specified limits on the compensation provided to the complainant. The Award under the schemes were limited to the amount arising directly out of the act or omission of the regulated entity or ₹20 lakh (in the case of banks or non-bank system participant), whichever is lower. The said limit was lower at ₹10 lakh in the case of the covered NBFCs, under the Ombudsman Scheme for NBFCs.

This differential treatment has now been streamlined under the integrated scheme. Now on, for any consequential loss suffered by the complainant, the Ombudsman shall have the power to provide a compensation up to ₹20 lakh. That apart, up to ₹1 lakh can also be awarded for the loss of the complainant’s time, expenses incurred and for harassment/mental anguish suffered by the complainant, as was available in the erstwhile schemes.

Appeal

The ombudsman schemes permitted customers to appeal against the award of an ombudsman or for the rejection of a complaint, to the appellate authority within 30 days. The appellate authority was vested with the Deputy Governor of the RBI in charge of the department implementing the erstwhile schemes.

Now under the integrated scheme, customers can file the appeal using the same portal. That apart, from now on the Executive Director in-Charge of the department of the RBI administering the Scheme, shall be the Appellate Authority.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

1 63 64 65 66 67 16,281