01 / ANALYSIS
Overview of the Case
This consolidated petition addresses the jurisdiction of the Banking Mohtasib to adjudicate complaints involving unauthorized or fraudulent Electronic Fund Transfers (EFTs). Consequently, the Court set aside several impugned orders that exceeded this jurisdictional scope and remanded specific cases for fresh determination.
02 / ANALYSIS
Brief Facts
Customers of several banks complained of electronic transfers from their accounts that they did not authorise. Some said that unknown callers had obtained their personal banking credentials through threats or deception; others denied disclosing credentials or reported unauthorised transfers without any such calls. The customers lodged complaints with the Banking Mohtasib, who directed reimbursement in a number of cases but rejected or closed others. Some customers then sought reconsideration by the President of Pakistan. The banks filed connected constitutional petitions concerning these complaint decisions and the resulting financial liabilities.
03 / ANALYSIS
Questions of Law
- Does the Banking Mohtasib have the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed questions of fact regarding unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfers?
- Can the Banking Mohtasib exercise judicial power to determine civil liability between a bank and a customer?
04 / ANALYSIS
The Court's Answers
Does the Banking Mohtasib have the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed questions of fact regarding unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfers?
Answer. Not where contested factual issues over alleged electronic-transfer fraud require a trial; the Mohtasib's role remains confined to its statutory jurisdiction.
“Cases which entail disputed questions of fact pertaining to unauthorized/fraudulent Electronic Fund Transfers involve determination of rights and obligations of parties and affixation of liability which are to be established through a fair trial that can only be guaranteed if conducted by a Court in exercise of judicial power.”
Can the Banking Mohtasib exercise judicial power to determine civil liability between a bank and a customer?
Answer. No. Disputed civil liability requiring judicial fact-finding falls outside the Mohtasib's proper adjudicative powers.
“However, the Banking Mohtasib under the Banking Companies Ordinance being part of the Executive and not under the supervision and control of the judiciary cannot perform judicial functions nor can he exercise judicial power.”
05 / ANALYSIS
Practical Relevance
Banks and customers should identify whether an electronic-transfer complaint concerns regulatory maladministration or a genuine dispute requiring evidence and trial. The appropriate forum depends on that distinction.