Mumbai: Consumer Court directs UBI & SBI to compensate account holder for failed ATM transaction

Mumbai: A District Consumer Commission has directed the Union Bank of India and State Bank of India to jointly compensate a city-based account holder Rs25,000 that he never got from the ATM but was debited from his account.

The Commission has also directed that the complainant be given Rs100 per day as delay charges as per RBI guidelines from Nov 8, 2016 when the ATM failed. The delay charges alone come to nearly Rs2.20 lakh. The Commission has also directed that Rs15,000 be paid towards mental agony and litigation cost.
The order was passed by Commission President SS Mhatre and Member MP Kasar on a complaint by Jayprakash Jaiswal against Union Bank of India, State Bank of India (branch managers at Nariman Point, Mumbai and Sikrara, UP)
Mr Jaiswal had tried to withdraw Rs10,000 from the ATM of State Bank of India at his native place in UP but the cash was not disbursed. He again attempted to withdraw Rs10,000 and Rs5,000 but the cash was not dispensed and instead Rs25,000 was debited from his account. He immediately informed the bank but there was no positive response from the parties and the amount was not credited.

The complaint of Nov 18, 2016 at Sikrara branch was cancelled and he was asked to file a fresh one in his home branch in Cotton Green, Mumbai. He then approached the Commission and relied upon passbook, SMS and call record conversation with customer care executive of Union Bank of India.
Union Bank of India was served with notice but did not appear so an ex-parte order was passed and all allegations against it remain unchallenged.
State Bank of India (both branches) claimed that the complainant did not come with clean hands and that the entire amount was disbursed to him and as per the log 25 currency notes of 1,000 were dispensed.
The commission said that the bank could not prove through camera on site that cash was collected by the complainant. It said that merely a complainant appearing inside the ATM and entry of the log are not sufficient proof.