06-19-2009, 03:38 PM
Yesterday a friend over a cup of tea narrated amongst friends his too sorry a story which to me was not merely a crucial national joke but also contributed to those who like our present rulers sarcastically with half open mouth say that since judiciary was today independent why people come to them instead of the judiciary.
The Banking Mohtasib has closed his complaint on the ground that the Bank concerned has explained its position to the Mohtasib who now feels that the complainant must be satisfied. It is not merely simply a cruel but most harsh national joke and a national shame. The logical thing is that the complainant who is a businessman filed a complaint with the Banking Mohtasib. The Banking Mohtasib complaint procedure requires a complainant invariably first to approach the Bank for redressal giving the Bank a 45 day warning and in case it did not solve the grievance the complainant would approach the Banking Mohtasib. This naturally shows that the complainant in this case approached the bank and after not being satisfied with the explanation response of the Bank approached the Mohtasib which in other simple words the explanation/response of the Bank was not satisfactory to the complainant. Now an Ombudsman under the universal practice is required to see the contents, views, explanations both of the complainant and the responded department (Bank), then evaluate both and ask the complaint to present any further comments/rejoinder to the position explained by the defendant (bank). And this was exactly being done by the Federal Ombudsman when banking complaints were under his jurisdiction. The reading of the complaint closing decision clearly showed that the Banking Mohtasib Office lacks the legal knowledge and the banking normal general practices/procedures employed universally. Only yesterday I was reading Islamabad traders association cried that both local and foreign Banks were harassing people just for their petty matters and these Banks refuse to accept any court or monitoring agency instructions on the g ground that the orders of the bank owners were supreme for them.. If the explanatory words of the Banking staff are so sacred in an atmosphere where even lies are submitted on the august floor of national assembly, then why to keep a so costly Banking mohtasib system if it is only and only to believe and give heavy weight to bankâs explained position and not look into with logic that what these words are and what the counter over riding sensible legal or logical arguments a citizen may have. Hearing this story is the first time that I am seriously thinking why people in Swat demand their old Nizam-e-Adal which delivered the true justice not the decision. In that justice when a complainant levied an allegation, the defendant party was told that allegation to âexplainâ position. What the defendant claimed in defence that was âinvariablyâ told to the complainant with âinstructionâ that âNow in light of this what you sayâ and only then a decision was made. In our todayâs modern system eg Banking Mohtasib what the bank explained got merit and weight without any opportunity to the complainant to verify. The complainant made complaint to the Banking Mohtasib only and one single point namely âATM Cardâ. The Mohtasib says bank has explained it has already delivered you cheque book, six monthly statement etc by DHL. The Banking Mohtasib did not see that cheque book and six monthly statement were never raised as complaint so why the bank was including these only to make its explanation hefty? In the eyes of a Mohtasib or any justice system both complainant and defendant are always equal. But in this case it does not appear so. If case was closed merely on the explanation of the Bank, the question is under the âone equal eyeâ why in the very first instant why should not had the content of the complaint be given same merit and close closed giving orders to the Bank that the complainant was right in his complaint? Mr. Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Choudhary is quite right that other parts of the country may not become Swat.
The Banking Mohtasib has closed his complaint on the ground that the Bank concerned has explained its position to the Mohtasib who now feels that the complainant must be satisfied. It is not merely simply a cruel but most harsh national joke and a national shame. The logical thing is that the complainant who is a businessman filed a complaint with the Banking Mohtasib. The Banking Mohtasib complaint procedure requires a complainant invariably first to approach the Bank for redressal giving the Bank a 45 day warning and in case it did not solve the grievance the complainant would approach the Banking Mohtasib. This naturally shows that the complainant in this case approached the bank and after not being satisfied with the explanation response of the Bank approached the Mohtasib which in other simple words the explanation/response of the Bank was not satisfactory to the complainant. Now an Ombudsman under the universal practice is required to see the contents, views, explanations both of the complainant and the responded department (Bank), then evaluate both and ask the complaint to present any further comments/rejoinder to the position explained by the defendant (bank). And this was exactly being done by the Federal Ombudsman when banking complaints were under his jurisdiction. The reading of the complaint closing decision clearly showed that the Banking Mohtasib Office lacks the legal knowledge and the banking normal general practices/procedures employed universally. Only yesterday I was reading Islamabad traders association cried that both local and foreign Banks were harassing people just for their petty matters and these Banks refuse to accept any court or monitoring agency instructions on the g ground that the orders of the bank owners were supreme for them.. If the explanatory words of the Banking staff are so sacred in an atmosphere where even lies are submitted on the august floor of national assembly, then why to keep a so costly Banking mohtasib system if it is only and only to believe and give heavy weight to bankâs explained position and not look into with logic that what these words are and what the counter over riding sensible legal or logical arguments a citizen may have. Hearing this story is the first time that I am seriously thinking why people in Swat demand their old Nizam-e-Adal which delivered the true justice not the decision. In that justice when a complainant levied an allegation, the defendant party was told that allegation to âexplainâ position. What the defendant claimed in defence that was âinvariablyâ told to the complainant with âinstructionâ that âNow in light of this what you sayâ and only then a decision was made. In our todayâs modern system eg Banking Mohtasib what the bank explained got merit and weight without any opportunity to the complainant to verify. The complainant made complaint to the Banking Mohtasib only and one single point namely âATM Cardâ. The Mohtasib says bank has explained it has already delivered you cheque book, six monthly statement etc by DHL. The Banking Mohtasib did not see that cheque book and six monthly statement were never raised as complaint so why the bank was including these only to make its explanation hefty? In the eyes of a Mohtasib or any justice system both complainant and defendant are always equal. But in this case it does not appear so. If case was closed merely on the explanation of the Bank, the question is under the âone equal eyeâ why in the very first instant why should not had the content of the complaint be given same merit and close closed giving orders to the Bank that the complainant was right in his complaint? Mr. Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Choudhary is quite right that other parts of the country may not become Swat.
