In a significant ruling, a district consumer commission in Kerala has found Union Bank of India liable for a deficiency in service after an ATM debited ₹10,000 from a customer's account without dispensing any cash. The commission has ordered the bank to not only refund the debited amount but also pay compensation for the inconvenience caused.
Commission Finds Bank Liable for Service Deficiency
The ruling came after P.K. Sathian, a customer of Union Bank, filed a complaint stating that on July 28, 2022, he attempted to withdraw ₹10,000 from his savings account at a Union Bank ATM on Kallai Road in Kozhikode. While the amount was successfully debited from his account, the ATM machine failed to dispense the requested cash.
Repeated Complaints Ignored by Bank
Following the failed transaction, Sathian promptly reported the issue to the bank. He submitted a written complaint to the Cherootty Road branch on July 30, 2022, and a subsequent complaint to the Kallai Road branch on August 12, 2022. Despite these efforts and repeated requests, the bank neither refunded the money nor adequately resolved the issue, compelling Sathian to approach the district consumer commission.
CCTV Footage: The Decisive Missing Evidence
During the commission proceedings, Union Bank of India contended that the customer had successfully withdrawn the money, citing the ATM's Electronic Journal (EJ) statement as proof of a completed transaction. However, the bench, comprising President Priya S and member V. Balakrishnan, highlighted a crucial missing piece of evidence: the CCTV footage from the ATM.
"CCTV footage is the conclusive proof to prove whether the amount was received by the complainant or not. But the opposite party failed to produce CCTV footage as evidence. EJ statement, is not at all a comprehensive proof in order to establish that the money was received by the complainant," the commission stated in its order.
The commission emphasized that while an EJ statement records a transaction, it does not conclusively prove that cash was physically dispensed and received by the customer. The absence of CCTV footage, which could have provided definitive proof, weakened the bank's defense significantly.
Refund and Compensation Mandated
The commission also noted that the complainant had timely reported the incident and provided copies of his written complaints, demonstrating his persistent efforts to resolve the matter. Concluding that there was clear proof of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the bank, the commission issued a directive:
- Union Bank of India must refund the ₹10,000 debited from P.K. Sathian's account.
- The bank must pay an additional ₹5,000 as compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant.
- These amounts must be paid within 30 days of the order.
- If the bank fails to comply within the stipulated period, the refund amount will accrue an annual interest of 9% until full payment.
This ruling underscores the importance of banks providing robust evidence in such disputes and adequately addressing customer grievances regarding ATM transactions.