NEW DELHI: A Kerala district consumer commission, in an order dated July 27, held Union Bank of India liable for deficiency in service after an ATM debited Rs 10,000 from a customer’s account without dispensing any cash. Holding that the bank failed to properly address the customer’s complaints and could not prove that the cash had actually been withdrawn, the commission directed it to refund the debited amount and pay Rs 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and inconvenience.How did the failed ATM transaction turn into a consumer dispute?According to the commission’s order, complainant P.K. Sathian visited a Union Bank ATM at Kallai Road in Kozhikode on July 28, 2022, to withdraw Rs 10,000 from his savings account. Although the amount was deducted from his account, the ATM did not dispense any cash.The complainant immediately informed the bank about the failed transaction. He first submitted a written complaint to the bank’s Cherootty Road branch on July 30, 2022. When the amount was still not credited back, he filed another complaint with the Kallai Road branch on August 12, 2022. Despite repeated requests, the bank neither refunded the money nor resolved the issue, forcing him to approach the consumer commission.The bank claimed that the customer had successfully withdrawn the money and relied on the ATM’s Electronic Journal (EJ) statement to support its case.Why did the commission rule against the bank?The bench comprising president Priya S and member V Balakrishnan found that the bank failed to produce CCTV footage from the ATM, which could have clearly shown whether the complainant had received the cash. It held that the EJ statement alone was not enough to prove that the withdrawal had actually taken place. It also noted that the complainant had promptly reported the issue and produced copies of his written complaints to the bank.“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 held.The commission observed that despite receiving complaints from the customer, the bank failed to properly deal with the issue or refund the debited amount. It held that this amounted to both deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.“We hold that there is proof of deficiency of service and also unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party in not properly addressing the concerns of the complainant,” it further noted.Holding the bank liable, the commission directed it to refund the Rs 10,000 debited from the complainant’s account and pay Rs 5,000 as compensation within 30 days. It further said that if the bank failed to refund the amount within the stipulated time, the refund amount would carry 9 percent annual interest until payment.“The complainant deserves to be compensated adequately for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered… The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 10,000/- which was debited from his account,” the bench concluded.
