In a consumer case (CC.No.1786/2014) filed in the Bengaluru District Consumer Forum (Additional District 4), the court has ordered in favour of State Bank of India denying the Complainant’s claim for compensation in a matter concerning non-receipt of cash during ATM withdrawal.
The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that, Complainant had sent her husband (as she was unable to move around on account of delivery and post-delivery treatment) to the Marathalli SBI ATM on 14.11.13 at about
8.30 p.m. with the ATM/Debit card to withdraw Rs.25,000/-. But to his surprise, the cash was not disbursed and the slip was printed duly debiting the said amount from her SB account. He made a call immediately to the
call center and later registered the complaint with Op on 15.11.13 and the Op replied stating that the said complaint has been attended and closed after resolution on 18.11.13. The Complainant however neither got the money credited back in the account nor any positive response.
The Complainant later obtained CCTV footage which showed that the amount was not disbursed. But a committee formed by the SBI viewed the CCTV footage and came to a conclusion that the Complainant was not seen in the footage even though the Complainant clearly mentioned that it’s her husband who had gone to withdraw money from the ATM as she was on maternity leave and unable to go to any place.
The cash verification report obtained through RTI showed that on 15.11.13 there has been no cash verification report available as the same was not done on that day as the machine was out of order and on 16.11.13, the cash verification report shows that there is an excess cash of Rs.25,000/-. The Complainant approached Op several times reminding them of their obligation and duties, but every such approach was chided and ignored by the Op whereafter she filed the present complaint with the District Consumer Forum.
On the other hand, the bank submitted that bank has verified the details of the transaction from the ATM and
its ACS. As per the records in the ATM and ACS, the Complainant was informed that money has been dispensed by the ATM and the transactions has been shown as successful in EJ log. The Op shared the information recorded in EJ log of the ATM with the Complainant. As per request of the Complainant the video footage of the ATM was also handed over to her. Ops further submit that, as per the terms & conditions of issue of ATM card the ATM card is ‘not transferrable’. The customer is not entitled to hand over the ATM/Debit card to anybody. The card holder is also
bound to keep the PIN number confidentially. Admittedly the Complainant has handed over the ATM card and disclosed the four digit PIN to her husband and same amounts to violating the terms & conditions of the card usage. As the Complainant is not the author of the transaction in question and having violated the terms & conditions of ATM card usage is not entitled to claim any relief from the Op. Ops further submit that, Marathahalli branch of Op where the disputed ATM transaction has taken place on 14.11.13, has informed/advised that am excess cash was found on 16.11.13 to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. However, the said amount was not withdrawn from the ATM by the bank. On 27.11.13 while balancing the cash in the ATM, it noticed an excess cash to the
tune of Rs.59,500/-. Out of which an amount of Rs.16,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively were reversed to the accounts of two customers as the complaints given by them were matching with the bank’s EJ log. The remaining amount of Rs.23,500/- was credited to the sundry cash deposit account of the bank. The Marathahalli branch has advised that the EJ log of the Complainant shows that her transaction has successful and technically correct.
After hearing the submissions, the Hon’ble Forum came to the conclusion as follows:
“ATM card is not transferrable. We do not find any exemption clause in it to handover the said ATM card to the
husband/wife/relatives/agents for withdrawal of the money from the ATM. In the instant case, if the Complainant would have been very diligent, she ought to have issued a self-cheque with authorization letter to her husband to draw the amount of Rs.25,000/- from the said bank. But she did not do so. Further it is evident that, Op bank issued the said ATM card with a condition that, it bears no liability for the unauthorized use of the said card. This responsibility is fully that of the card holder i.e. the Complainant herein. Further the bank will not be responsible for any loss either direct or indirect on account of ATM card failure/malfunctioning. These terms & conditions have been violated by the Complainant by handing over of the said card to her husband. When the
terms & conditions being violated, the said claim cannot be claimed by the Complainant as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision reported in (1996) 4 SCC 704 in the case of Bharathi Knitting co., vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Air Fright ltd., In this context we come to the conclusion that, complaint filed by the Complainant is liable to be dismissed.”