V.R. Kingaonkar, Presiding Member—This revision petition is directed against concurrent judgements rendered by the District Forum and the State Commission whereby complaint of respondent was allowed.

2. The revision petition involves a significant question of law as to whether refusal of the Petitioner-Bank to credit amount of Gratuity and Group Insurance in the account of the respondent can be branded as deficiency in the banking service as contemplated under Section 2 (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3. Before embarking upon determination of the above-referred clinching question, it would be useful to set out the factual matrix. Undisputedly, the deceased respondent (complainant) was Manager of the Petitioner-Bank. It appears that he was superannuated on 31.1.2001. There is no dispute about the fact that the amount of Gratuity and Group Insurance Scheme was payable to the respondent on account of his superannuation. The amount had not been, however, paid to him. As an employee of the petitioner, the respondent was having A/c. No. 36 in the Petitioner’s-Bank. The Petitioner-Bank noticed that certain amounts were recoverable from the respondent being the amoun