The State Bank of India had been ordered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Hyderabad to pay compensation and litigation cost equal to Rs. 1,00,000 to one of its customers as his account got debited even on failure of his ATM transaction.
How Did This Happen?
The story unfolds when Udaru Sarvotama Reddy, the complainant, went to an SBI ATM for withdrawing some cash. To be exact, he tried to withdraw Rs 10,000 but the transaction got declined due to some problem in that ATM.
But After around 20 days, the same amount gets deducted from his account.
Considering the situation, he approached the SBI bank, but they informed that the amount is ‘kept on hold’ for some time as they are waiting for the confirmation that the ATM money was disbursed.
Further when the complainant approached the Banking Ombudsman, Hyderabad for redressal of his grievance, they closed the request without even enquiring him about the situation.
Next, the Complainant approached the forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 protesting that the bank services are insufficient and faulty.
What Happened In The Proceedings?
During the proceedings, the respondent bank said that the complainant’s transaction was successful and due to some technical issues the said amount can not be debited from his account.
The bank also said that they didn’t find any extra cash in ATM after the said transaction so they concluded that the complainant got the said amount.
Further, the bank debated the Forum’s jurisdiction claiming that the dispute in question was not a consumer dispute.
Also, they claimed that the dispute involved complicated questions of facts and law which required adjudication by a competent Civil Court.
What Was The Forum’s Decision?
The bench of President, Nimma Narayana and Member, Meena Ramanathan, rejected the argument presented by complainant.
They said that the question of lack of jurisdiction is not applicable since the complainant had his savings account at the respondent bank so he was acknowledged as a ‘customer’.
Moreover, as he used the Bank’s ATM so the Bank is also a service provider to the complainant.
The bench said “there is no proof of [the customer] having made a complaint with the SBI from the date of the incident the obligation on the part of SBI to produce CCTV footage was ruled out due to expiry of maximum preservation period of 90 days from the date of the incident, is nothing but false… Non-production of CCTV footage by the opposite party No.1 & 2 even though complainant made complaint to them within 90 days preservation period from 26-01-2017 leads to an adverse inference that the complainant did not receive Rs. 10,000/-,”.
They also added “The very fact that Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) was debited to the account of the complainant on 15-02-2017 shows that there were technical problems with the SBI ATM. The complainant not getting cash of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) from SBI ATM on 26-01-2017 is quite probable. There is, therefore, a deficiency of service on part of opposite party’s No.1 & 2 in providing service to the complainant,”. (reference livelaw)
Thus they hold the Bank liable for deficiency in its services. The commission ordered the Bank to pay a compensation of Rs 90,000/- for inconvenience mental torment caused due to the complainant.
Also, they granted a litigation of Rs 10,000/- which is to be payable within 30 days if failed the complainant would be entitled to an interest of 8% per annum.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.