In Brief
A complainant filed a consumer case against a bank after funds deposited in his account were wrongly transferred to another customer with a similar name due to the bank's error in account number assignment. The District Consumer Forum and State Commission found the bank liable, but the National Commission allowed the bank's revision petition based on a suo-moto report it had called from the bank itself. The Supreme Court set aside the National Commission's order, holding that its revisional jurisdiction does not permit calling for additional evidence sua sponte without following proper procedure, and that the lower courts' reasoned findings should not be overturned based on such unsolicited reports. The Court also clarified that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to civil suits, contrary to the National Commission's suggestion.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.