In Brief
A bank customer deposited Rs. 3,00,000 into what he believed was his own account, but due to a clerical error and account number similarity, the funds were credited to another customer's account with a similar name. The second customer then withdrew the money. The Consumer Forum and State Commission held the bank liable for the error. The National Commission reversed this, relying on a suo-moto report from the bank. The Supreme Court held that the National Commission exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction by calling for and relying on fresh evidence from a party to the dispute that the lower forums could not address, and restored the State Commission's order holding the bank liable.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.