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 bank’s 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 “explain” position.  What
the defendant claimed in defence that was “invariably” told to the
complainant with “instruction” that “Now in light of this what you
say” and only then a decision was made. In our today’s 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 “ATM Card”.  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 “one equal eye”
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.